Time to talk about the pros and cons of Localism.
Localism is a trending thought in my circles. The idea is that we should focus more on building relationships and thick Christian culture close to home, than on national or international politics or concerns.
Pastor Michael Foster in Ohio just put on a County before Country conference, a prime example of this idea.
I didn't go, and the talks aren't public yet, so I'm going out on a limb here a bit, evaluating this movement. I'm open to pushback wherever I'm mischaracterizing localism.
Pros of Localism
1. When Jesus told the Good Samaritan parable, the point was to love whoever God puts in front of you, and that is certainly local. The priest and Levite who passed by (literally walked over) the guy, probably had responsibilities in Jerusalem, a few miles away on foot. But they should have stopped and helped. This is one good thing localism is getting at.
2. The political principle of subsidiarity fits here as well - the conservative notion that problems are best fixed at the most local level possible.
3. It is better for us to be shaped by in-person mentors close by with whom we have frequent contact, than by online celebrity teachers. Some friends were going to go to the conference mentioned above, but wound up helping a friend get their house ready to sell. Why drive 7 hours to hear talks about localism, when we can actually do it, right here? they said. Amen.
4. I've pastored two churches now for 15 years or so, where people drive for quite a ways to come, seeking particular things in a church. That's not inherently wrong or unwise. But localism is a good push in the opposite balancing direction. Do we simply gather together because we agree on a list of topics and opinions? Or does our geography, which makes real and deeper relationships more feasible, matter?
Cons of Localism
1. Politically, this is a new version of isolationism in national politics, the rise of which I dread and oppose. America shouldn't be the world's policemen everywhere, but we should help where we can, and we have the resources few others do. Less foreign aid generally? Yes. But refraining to counterbalance the tyrannical assertions of evil empires, like Russia into Ukraine, or China into Taiwan? Bad idea.
2. I fear for the effect this has in the church on international missions efforts, as well. We are connected tangibly through the church to certain Christian Ukrainians, for example. Such connections should be fostered, not de-prioritized, even though they are far away. Churches should set aside 10% of their budgets to give to ministries and missions outside of their work, both local and international.
3. Localism has obvious limits. It cannot be the only factor in deciding where to invest relationships. I'm geographically closer to a shop that sells crystals, tarot, and does psychic readings, than I am to over half of our church members. That doesn't mean I'm more relationally bound to the occult-friendly shop.
4. The Ugly: some of the localism movement appears infected with a studied disdain or apathy for those who aren't like us or who are far away. An inference is sometimes falsely made: since those farther away or less like you have less priority, then it is wrong or at least unwise to give them any of your attention or energy. So, do not pay attention to the inner city's needs near you, but only to your family and neighborhood. You are not obligated in any way to people of a different ethnic heritage than you, and should let them help their own. Your family and most of the people around you are white, say - deal with your own kind (hello, kinism). Since I referred to Michael Foster above, I should clarify that he is not friendly to this ugly strand of localism.
This is where the Good Samaritan parable comes back into play as a corrective. Jesus makes the last guy a Samaritan. As I understand it, this parable was told by the Pharisees before Jesus told it, and the last guy was always a Pharisee, told to an audience of Pharisees, who did for the poor guy all that is described in Jesus' parable. This was a self-righteous, populist take: we're the good guys. The elite Sadducees may talk a good talk, but they won't actually help the poor. WE will. Jesus counters, and makes the good guy someone who all Jews had the most racial and religious antipathy for.
So localism is bounded Scripturally by rejecting hostility for ethnic or racial differences, and by rejecting an endorsement of keeping a separation between such differences. We should make an effort to bridge those divides when we have opportunity, as Jesus did (John 4; Mark 7:24-8:13 - note in 8:11-13 that the Pharisees argue with Jesus after He feeds the 4,000 in the Gentile territory of the Decapolis).
Localism should also be balanced with other factors, like affinity of beliefs. Paul wrote letters to fellow believers far away, when he could have focused all his time on those immediately surrounding him.
But the basic premise of localism is sound.
Build networks and culture with the ones God has placed around you. God wants an incarnational church, one that makes a physical and in-person difference in lives directly around you. This is an aspect of the Dominion mandate (Gen 1:28) and the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-19). Fulfill that mandate!
No comments:
Post a Comment