Someone said: “I still get the sense that something is fundamentally flawed with the greatest city on earth, a place many people call home.”

Um, yes? Everywhere I’ve ever called home was fundamentally flawed, due (among other things) to the fact that people lived there (including myself). I’ve never before heard someone claim New York City isn’t a flawed and imperfect place; does acknowledging that fact necessarily prevent the folks at Redeemer Presbyterian from loving their home city and wanting it to be even greater?

I am presently in seminary training for the priesthood, and would much rather NOT be called to New York City. I love small towns like the ones in which I grew up. And, based partly on that experience, I agree with both Wendell Berry and Dr. Hart that there are real problems being identified here. However, there are also a lot of clergy who do pour themselves into their country congregations, some of them for many years. And whether or not Christianity Today is showing urbanist bias (possible), I don’t think Dr. Keller is doing anything blame-worthy. Somebody’s gotta pastor urbanites, too. :-)

I’d assume you’d normally complain about soundbite argumentation – so it’s rather ironic that you’ve taken a single quote from a page which links to hours of resources which set out his thinking and then truncate it of the gospel reference.

Isn’t soundbite argumentation different from employing another’s short hand for a larger argument?

…to the extent that the organic and agarian movements are driven out of a concern for people (as opposed to being purely niche consumerism), the concern of the author for those parts of the country which are full of the unchurched is conspicious by it’s absence.

Its absence doesn’t equate unconcern, as you imply, because there is only so much a post can cover and it wasn’t the immediate point of the post. That’s just writing 101. But the premise of your words here seems odd: the urban centers are specially full of unchurched or irreligious people. So are plenty of rural ones, if the rural ones I grew up in are any measure. That’s because unbelief is wherever people are and no corner of earth can claim a monopoly on it (whatever the expert statiticians might want to say). So the point here is to wonder why urbana gets the lion’s share of attention and resources. Must be because most agree with your premise.

To build a great city for all people­—through a gospel movement that brings personal conversion, community formation, social justice and cultural renewal to New York and, through it, to the world.”

I’d assume you’d normally complain about soundbite argumentation – so it’s rather ironic that you’ve taken a single quote from a page which links to hours of resources which set out his thinking and then truncate it of the gospel reference.

If it sometimes recognizable that means it’s mostly not, which is why Presbyterians conventionally put the accent on the ordinary, not the extaordinary

Santification – however ‘ordinary’ – isn’t the same as any program of personal change, moralism or therapy.

And I’d reiterate my earlier point – to the extent that the organic and agarian movements are driven out of a concern for people (as opposed to being purely niche consumerism), the concern of the author for those parts of the country which are full of the unchurched is conspicious by it’s absence.

I think the original post puts way too much of the ‘blame’ on the urban churches that seem to lure ministers away from rural locations. What about the minister? Where is his responsibility in this? I DO think that ultimately economics play the largest role, but isn’t it just a given that people are going to seek more money/resources as their career advances? Once the minister has a wife and kids and is thinking about college tuition, ministering to a rural flock of 40 doesn’t seem like the wisest move.

I come at this from a Catholic background myself. Our priests didn’t have to worry about putting kids through college or varying salaries. They all pretty much made the same amount of money and they all knew they had a comfortable rectory to come home to every night.

Obviously there is some ego involved in wanting to minister to a larger flock, but it’s also easier to focus on the actual ministery. In a small church the minister is sort of an everyman who has to wear a lot of hats. In large urban churches the lay folks do much of the heavy lifting.

Firstly, that’s the language of Christianity Today, and not the language of the one example of a ‘city transformer’ that they actually quote. I suspect Tim Keller would be rather more circumspect and naunced as to how he would actually express it, and it would be more centred around the effect of a number of people slowly realising what loving God by serving their neighbour actually meant in practice.

You mean like this:

“Redeemer’s Vision

To build a great city for all people­—through a gospel movement that brings personal conversion, community formation, social justice and cultural renewal to New York and, through it, to the world.”

http://www.redeemer.com/about_us/vision_and_values/

The short hand is still, “We’re gonna transform this place.” I still get the sense that something is fundamentally flawed with the greatest city on earth, a place many people call home. Were I a New Yorker, I’d be a little tweaked.

And whilst agreeing with the caution against perfectionistic theraputic tendancies – I’d note that santification in aggregate is nevertheless sometimes recognisable – 1 Peter 2 is probably one of the more salient passages along these lines, but it is seen throughout the book of Acts and the Epistles.

If it sometimes recognizable that means it’s mostly not, which is why Presbyterians conventionally put the accent on the ordinary, not the extaordinary, when it comes to the nature of personal sanctification. If this is the case, it is quizzical to me how such an extraordinary social vision could ever possibly come close to being realized by such an ordinary personal program, circumspect and nuanced or not.

First, when transformers speak they have in mind place, not people. What else can one mean by “We’re gonna transform this city”?

Firstly, that’s the language of Christianity Today, and not the language of the one example of a ‘city transformer’ that they actually quote. I suspect Tim Keller would be rather more circumspect and naunced as to how he would actually express it, and it would be more centred around the effect of a number of people slowly realising what loving God by serving their neighbour actually meant in practice.

So when we understand evangelizing to be a project at effecting what the ordo understands, it’s still not about changing the essential natures of sinful creatures, nor is it, contrary to the reigning therapeutic model, about making bad people good and good people better. It’s about redeeming the sinful condition of very good creatures.

And whilst agreeing with the caution against perfectionistic theraputic tendancies – I’d note that santification in aggregate is nevertheless sometimes recognisable – 1 Peter 2 is probably one of the more salient passages along these lines, but it is seen throughout the book of Acts and the Epistles.

Second, when one (rightly) has people in mind

Which would be more convincing if the author had called for extra money to be given to church plants in the inner cities (where large numbers of the unchurched actually were) and not rural communities – which tend to be sparsely populated and better served by churches to start with.