TO THE WHOLE “CITY”
Language and the Word “City” in the City Reaching Movement
by Adam Shields

Problem

City Impact Roundtable has used “The whole Church bringing the whole Gospel to the whole City” as a shorthand version
of our purpose. Traditionally the “whole Church” has been very difficult to understand and actualize because of
differences in theology, practical problems with understanding of what the church is and is about, and political problems
within the “Church” that prevents parts of the church from acknowledging other parts of the church. The “whole Gospel”
has a bit more clarity.

Recent statements and historical creeds have affirmed that the “Gospel” is all encompassing in scope. The Lausanne
Covenant and the Manila Manifesto speak of salvation not only of individuals but of institutions and regeneration not
only in the next world but also in this world. The specifics of this “whole Gospel” are as difficult as the “whole
Church” but theoretically there is a basic agreement as to the fact that there is a “whole Gospel.”

The “whole City” is similarly difficult for CIR and others to conceive. There are three basic problems with
understanding the “whole City.” The first is a geographical problem. In common usage the word city has specific
boundaries. You can point to a spot on the ground that divides one city from another or “the city” from “not the city.”
If we use the actual word “City” are we alienating the suburbs?

This is complicated by the second problem; the fact that the church in general and the Evangelical church in
particular has turned its back on “the City.” The second problem is a mission problem. With the rise of Protestantism,
especially the American volunteerism style of Protestantism, the church began concentrating on holding itself up not
against the world or as a light to a specific area, but against the other “Churches” that were around it and as a light
to the “Church.” With the loss of the conception of the parish the local church began to look to people that were like
themselves, in theological understanding, in socioeconomic status, and in race and culture.

This has been accentuated by the increasing diversity of the world. As cities grew and travel increased people
became more aware differences between themselves and the “other.” A traditional conception of the parish required that
all people within a specific geography be acknowledge and ministered to by the local church. While this has likely never
been practiced completely, the modern church is as far from the idea of a parish as it has likely ever been. Without a
conception of a parish, the whole church cannot comprehend the “whole City” because most local churches do not feel
responsible for a specific group of people let alone a specific area.

The third problem of understanding the “whole City” is a very practical one. Many of our cities have populations
that number in the millions or at least the hundreds of thousands. The complexity of the city and the diversity of its
peoples, churches, ministries and needs boggles the mind. All people have a limit to the number of people that they can
personally know and relate to. If this is the case, then how can we as Christians love and minister to the “whole City?”
Using Chicago as an example, the city of Chicago has approximately 3 million people, with approximately 2900 churches.
The surrounding area has more than 250 separate municipalities with more then 7000 additional churches and an additional
5.5 million people. These people live in an area that is approximately 3600 square miles. The area is a single economic
and media unit. However it is unlikely that a pastor and congregation in Zion, IL (far northeast) will ever closely
relate to a pastor and congregation in Chicago Heights (far southeast). Many other areas of the country have similar
problems that vary only in scale, but not in difficulty.

Possible Uses of the word City

CIR members and others interested in “City ministry” use the word “City” in a variety of ways. Paul Dozeman uses
“City” in the following way for his newsletter City View, “City is used as a generic term to define an area with a
natural boundary. ZIP codes, school districts, city limits, wards, neighborhood associations, or rural routes can all be
considered “cities” in this context.” By this definition, any area or group of areas can be called a “City.” The
strengths of this usage is its flexibility. The definition is self-imposed and can be edited with any need.
Unfortunately this is also its weakness. Outsiders will usually not understand the definition without education. It
will also be a cause for debate among the members of the group, wanting to include one area and exclude another.

Denis Fuqua has written several articles about the “Church of the City.” In his article The Third Paradigm of
Ministry he has the following quote, “Geography was the only boundary the New Testament writers allowed in the Church.
When the Church of the New Testament took any steps to be identified on a foundation other than that of geography, Paul
slapped them on the wrist and told them to stop it! (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-9; 12:12-26).”

Fuqua continue in this article to describe the three possible options for the use of Church in the New Testament.
The first option is the “City” church, i.e. the church of Jerusalem. The second option is the regional option, i.e. the
church of Asia or Judea. The final option for describing a church is a household, i.e. the church at the home of
Nympha. This final option is most like our current usage of church. However, it is the first two uses of the word
"church" that are the most prevalent in the New Testament.

If we rediscover the use of the word church as Fuqua posits then we would also be require to rediscover the
geographical references as well. The advantages of this “Biblical” language choice are is the variety of language used
to describe different sizes of geography. While it is not specific (Is Chicago a region or city? Should Chicago’s city
reaching movement change its name to “One Great Region”?), it gives the ability for organizing the church into three
realms of work while still keeping a clear view of each of the others. The problem with this variety of language is that
education is still required to help newcomers to understand our definitions.

At some point we have to look at the dictionary to decide the “official” meaning of the word “city.” According to
Webster’s there are three definitions for city: 1) A large town, 2) A corporate town; in the United States, a town or
collective body of inhabitants, incorporated and governed by a mayor and aldermen or a city council consisting of a board
of aldermen and a common council; 3) The collective body of citizens, or inhabitants of a city.

These definitions do not allow for the crossing of incorporated boundaries. While this is clear, it does separate.
One problem in the US Church is the geographic split between racial and ethnic groups. If this definition of city is
used it may give license to discrimination, overt or not.

Toward a ‘Solution’

There are no easy solutions in language problems. The beauty and horror of postmodernism and the English language is
that there are no final and complete solutions. The solution for your area will likely be different from the solution of
another area. The first step is to have a discussion with your constituents to determine if there is a language gap.
This will be important not only for the naming of city reaching projects but also the language that is used to
communicate these projects. If there is a language gap then grace needs to be used. What groups are feeling alienated
by the variety of language? What groups have traditionally held the “power” in the area? Should these “powerful” groups
be allowed to make the decision because of their ability to bring others to their understanding? Or should the “weaker”
groups be held up with more care in order to bring about reconciliation? When there is a language gap there will likely
be more than just two different language understandings and these understandings often will not split down according to
easily understood lines of difference.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to hear your thoughts about the language that we use to describe geography within city reaching
movement. Please email me at adam@cbcdc.com