There was a time when communities thrived on the stability and longevity of families who established themselves in a place. Without having to make an effort these families naturally knew everyone in the neighborhood because they grew up together, worked together, or were in a club or church together. This natural process worked to naturally weave the community together. Churches benefited from this stability and longevity, so much so that those starting churches would start with families that were paragons of stability.

We often lament the loss of that “old neighborhood feel” where people knew each other, looked out for each other, and contributed for the good of the community. But we don’t realize how these shifts in increased mobility impact the neighborhood feel.

When it comes to investing in people in the way that Jesus modeled and taught us to do, we became used to banking on stability and longevity. We adopted a mentality of investing primarily in those who were going to be around for a long time. The result has been that we have not invested in those we think will only be around temporarily. But in a time of frequent moving, career changes, and even international mobility, we need to adapt by investing fully in people no matter their length of stay.

The phrase “running to stand still” is normally used to mean that our efforts are hopeless. But running to stand still on treadmill still results in exercise. In the same manner, discipling people of every nation is essential no matter the length time we have them. Those guys in the book of Acts (Paul, Priscilla, Aquila, and others) had this mindset. They went to a city called Thessalonica where they spent 3-4 weeks before they were run out of town. Yet, during such a short amount of time they invested/mentored/discipled the new followers of Jesus there in such a manner that Paul could later remark that they became examples and proclaimers of the good news of Jesus to those in the entire surrounding geographical area (1 Thessalonians 1). We need to shift our mentality to make disciples in this manner. It is intense, but it is transformative.

Walkability is a great feature for an urban store and definitely a positive step for the big box stores that have been buying up huge swaths of unincorporated farmland and throwing up acres of parking lots and cheap, unaesthetic structures. It is environmentally better, better for the city’s tax base, and less demanding on the municipal infrastructure. It is even an improvement for the population-dense downtowns. While it is an improvement in these ways, it isn’t all positive.

Eric Jacobsen offers another angle on the issue in his book Sidewalks in the Kingdom: New Urbanism and the Christian Faith. Jacobsen argues persuasively that the big chain stores do not contribute to the local community in the same ways a local business does. In contrast, local stores are owned and run by people who have a personal stake in the community. They will participate in local events, serve the municipality, and contribute to local causes. A local business might care more about how the building contributes to the character and identity of the neighborhood. Local businesses might help promote a community charity or offer a community drama group a space to practice. In this way, the big box stores don’t contribute to the local neighborhoods of the city in the same ways small businesses can. Sometimes when we think of cities we think of everything on a large scale (skyscrapers, big stores, and access to anything). But a wonderful feature of great cities is the local neighborly feel of communities that combine to create cities.

10. They sing songs that matter. 14 people were killed by British troops during a peaceful protest in Ireland in 1972. “There has been a lot of talk about this song. This song is not a rebel song. This song is Sunday Bloody Sunday.”

9. Their b-side covers sound better than the originals. Here is “Unchained Melody”

8. They are great live! I have posted two videos. One is “Elevation” from their show in Pasadena in 2009, which I was at. The other is a clip from the sensational Zoo TV tour. Here is another of a dramatic version of “With or Without You“

7. They make a great music video. I love this one of “Where the Streets Have No Name” filmed in a bad part of downtown L.A. Once the media spread the word it gave the police fits.

6. They make creative videos too. Like pricey production “Elevation” with the Lara Croft theme, or the playful video of “Numb”. But one of my favorites is the video of the amazing love song “All I Want is You”. The story told in the video is moving and intense.

5. They have performed with artists as diverse as Pavarotti, Jay-Z, Tony Bennett, Johnny Cash, Mary J Blige, REM, and BB King. Featured here is “Miss Sarajevo” with a beautiful part by Pavarotti. The footage is from a documentary about a beauty pageant in the midst of war-torn Sarajevo.

4.They did the best Superbowl halftime show ever. On the heels of 9/11, U2′s performance was a tribute to those lost on 9/11 and a call to bounce back. The band performed Beautiful Day/MLK/Where The Streets Have No Name.

3. They made the best album of all time (in my opinion) with Joshua Tree. The album featured “Where the Streets Have No Name”, “With or Without You” and “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” featured here.

You broke the bonds
And you loosed the chains
Carried the cross
Of my shame

2. They have done the best anthemic songs. These are the kinds of songs that rouse a whole stadium to life, that inspire activism, and say something…loudly. Here is “Pride (In the Name of Love)”.

1. One of the best songs ever. In a 2003 special edition of Q, this song was listed as the best song ever among “1001 Best Songs Ever”. You guessed it…”One”! U2 released three videos of the song, but my favorite is the one with the buffalo footage. The other two are the Anton Corbjin directed one and the one with Bono sitting in a bar.

The question remains, if people are flocking to cities like never before how is it that these cities are decreasing in population and even “dying”? It is a strange new reality of the “urban millennium” (Viv Grigg’s phrase) we have entered. People are moving to cities for specific reasons, jobs, professional opportunities, develop a certain skill, art, craft, or perhaps simply to enjoy the amenities a great city can offer. In other words, people hope for certain things in the city. In an increased age of mobility and global transience, people can choose the cities to which they move. In fact, Richard Florida even asserts that we tend to move to cities that suit our personalities in his book Who’s Your City? What this means is that cities are going to have to compete to remain vibrant cities. They are going to have to step up their game, which means they going to have to learn how to become a good city. Inviting a couple of big companies and building an interstate that passes through just isn’t going to cut anymore. People are looking for a city where they can thrive and where the city has character. The great cities of the world have done this very well. We love London, New York, and San Francisco because they have interesting neighborhoods, mixed used communities, and unique stores, restaurants, and faith communities. If New York replaced all the local pizza joints with Papa John’s, Domino’s, and Pizza Huts, then New York’s interstingness (I know this isn’t a word) would drop considerably.

One of the cities that was on the list, Grand Rapids, has responded with a record-breaking lip-dub. It was not only an amazing organization feet, it makes Grand Rapids look like a nice place to live. Cities will need to think more about how to become great places to live rather than just a job and a house somewhere in the burbs. But just as the people of Grand Rapids came together for their city, this is what it will take in the future. Average citizens coming together for the good of their respective cities.

I was not there for the actual talk (although I wish I was), but have seen an increasing amount of attention on the notion of “transformation”. In recent years there has been a surge in books about the urgent need for “transformation”. These books are written by conservatives and liberals, pentecostals, evangelicals, and mainliners. But what does “transformation” mean? Where does it start? How do we go about it? What are we hoping for? I mean, what does a transformed community look like? Have we really thought it through? Or is it just a ruse to get more people into churches?

I am all for “transformation” just like everyone else on the planet. But we need to do the hard work of really researching and reflecting on what it means and are all of the “nice things”/”good works”/charity events we’re doing actually moving us toward transformation?

“There is a longing for unity among all human beings, for unity offers the promise of peace. The problem is that we want unity on our terms, and it is our rival programs for unity which tear us apart. As Augustine said, all wars are fought for the sake of peace. The history of the world, and of course the name we give to these efforts is ‘imperialism.’ The Christian gospel has sometimes been made the tool of an imperialism, and of that we have to repent. But at its heart it is the denial of all imperialisms, for at its center there is the cross where all imperialisms are humbled and we are invited to find the center of human unity in the One who was made nothing so that all might be one. The very heart of the biblical vision for the unity of humankind is that its center is not an imperial power but the slain Lamb.” (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 159)

“American Dreams can cloud our visions of the city; unexamined models created by our cultural world views affect the facts we choose to see or not see in the Scriptures. Our theologies of the city must be constructed with one eye on the Bible and one eye on the place where we put up our church signs.” (A Clarified Vision for Urban Mission, 28-29)

This is something that is very difficult to overcome. We have so fused the American dream with the biblical mandate that it is virtually imposable to parse. It does seem as though it will be a crucial step for the evangelical church to make any impact on the cities. A big part of this will be for the church to discern its role in the surrounding community.

“The baptism of materialism in the name of Jesus, the benediction of competition as a way of life, the sanctification of growth as numerical success—all these hinder us from finding the invisible, urban poor and relating evangelism to ‘the underside of history,’ the urban world of the weak, the defeated, the ‘nonperson.’ The church, created in this image, becomes merely a warm spot for troubled souls.”[1]

He points out one of our key blind spots, the American Dream.

“American Dreams can cloud our visions of the city; unexamined models created by our cultural world views affect the facts we choose to see or not see in the Scriptures. Our theologies of the city must be constructed with one eye on the Bible and one eye on the place where we put up our church signs.”[2]

How much have we allowed the American Dream to shape our beliefs?

[2] Ibid., 28-29..

After living in several developing nations for significant portions of my life in developing nations and having worked in relief and development in a part of the world devastated by a combination of poverty and a mass-fatality disaster for four years, I have developed a different perspective on the matter. Here are some things I hear being stated that I believe deserve comment:

“Help is not getting to the people of Haiti” -This has been a repeated mantra in the media and has evoked much emotion from people. People respond in different ways, some decide to send their own food by putting in a box or bucket that can be sent through a well-intentioned organization. Others decide that the issue can be solved by going personally to help. But rarely, rarely do I hear people actually asking questions about why the relief is slow in getting to the people. This should be step one! If all of the food being sent from outside the country is not getting into the country, then the answer should NOT be to send more food from outside the country. In the disaster I worked in the main customs port used to bring send food and supplies into the country was not in the disaster zone and the customs employees saw an opportunity to turn a profit by “taxing” the incoming donations.

“Don’t just write a check to an organization, do something.”- The way I often hear this is that people have such distrust for relief and development organizations that they believe more will be done through “doing something.” People see large amounts of money being donated, but still hear stories of overwhelming poverty. The conclusion drawn is that the money donated to large organizations is not going anywhere. Once again, we need to ask questions instead of just reacting to media stories. It can be very harmful to the local economy to flood the market with free food. In fact, good development requires spending development slowly. While relief and development agencies certainly need accountability and do make mistakes, it is arrogant to think we can waltz in as amateurs and do it better. Just look at places that have received the most amateur “relief” like Tijuana, Mexico. How much has all the amateur help actually helped?

We need to do a better job of trying to understand the realities of the context and the process of good development that actually contributes to the alleviation of poverty. We need to be aware of the implications of our actions. If too much food comes from the outside, then it can severely damage the local economy (farmers, food producers, distributors and sellers) and if that collapses, then we have only increased poverty. This has been a problem in Haiti.

I don’t want to leave this post in a state of cynicism. You might be asking, How can we help? In my experience and training, good development needs to happen one community at a time with a long-term commitment. Good relief and development organizations don’t just sweep in a fix all of the problems in a community, simply because it won’t work. (For a good resource on the causes of poverty check out this podcast from Food for the Hungry) Good relief and development organizations work with the community to help them get to the point of solving their problems. You can imagine how it can be frustrating when an organization is committed to this kind of development and then well-intentioned volunteers come in with money or “answers” and throw the development process off. We need to find the types of organizations do this kind of development work and invest in them. When searching for these organizations, don’t look to see if they are doing “cool” projects, but look at the process they are using to alleviate poverty.