Yesterday in talking to two different pastors in Memphis, the topic of public schools came up two different times.

One said to me in the context of his church’s and his family’s missional engagement with the city, “We decided to do the opposite of what most have done. People left the city and we decided to move in. People have pulled their kids out of public schools and we decided to put our kids in city schools.” I resonated with his passion.

Another conversation, this pastor, too, with a heart to send people on mission back into the city, but with a different approach to schools.  “The main way that I’m going to be on mission is not going to be through my 10 year old. I don’t expect him to be prepared for that. That’s not a risk I’m willing to take.” I was certainly sympathetic.

So the question is this: in a city like Memphis, or St. Louis – whose school system lost their accreditation in 2007 – what posture should a missional leader personally take toward the public schools?  Does a pastor or member of a church seeking city renewal have a responsibility to enroll their kids in the public school system? Why or why not? Is putting your kids in city schools an effective strategy for mission – or is there a better way for families to be on mission together?

Rethink Mission: Lets talk about contextualization. What does it look like for you to preach to your audience: predominantly young St. Louisans?
Darrin Patrick: We have a multi-generational church; more and more I’m not preaching to one generation – I’m preaching to three or four.  At the same time, I don’t care how old you are, you have a basic worldview that I would call American, post-Christian, and relativistic.

American, meaning that people are fiercely individualistic and consumeristic. To try to challenge people to participate in the gospel through the mission of the local church is absolutely radical. Nobody asks anybody to commit to anything anymore. The bar has been lowered. That’s primarily, I think, an American thing; it’s not just American, but everybody’s been marketed to their whole life, told that they can have it their way and every way.  So, when someone comes up and says, “No. There is a cross and you gotta carry it, and here is a city and you gotta love it,” you’re being controversial. I have to address that in preaching.

I have to address this idea that people are post-Christian, meaning that the majority of the people coming into our church are not used to the Christian subculture. A lot of them grew up in church but they’re not familiar with it. You can’t use buzzwords; you can’t use “Christian-ese”. You can’t assume that people know. They are biblically illiterate. Even if they grew up in a church, they don’t know the scripture for the most part, so you can’t really assume anything. They don’t have a good understanding of the narrative arc of the scripture, so they just default to moralism or to whatever.

People are also relativistic, meaning that they don’t really honor any meta-narrative, that there is someone who can tell everyone what to do, that there is truth that is true for all peoples and all times and all places. People don’t believe that. You have to address that. You can’t just assume, “I’ll say, ‘The Bible says,’ and that’s enough.” There is some philosophy that needs to be used, there is some challenging to that mindset if you’re going to get through to people.

RM: Do you specifically attack “defeater beliefs” or questions non-Christians might have about the text?
DP: I try to. Obviously [Tim] Keller has a done a great job of articulating what the main ones are. I think it’s important to take away peoples arguments that are philosophically founded but are not solid. I think it’s good to get people thinking about the fact that what they’re basing their whole life on is a belief as well.  I do think its helpful to do that; you’ve got to do that pretty much in every sermon that your text touches one of those [alternate] beliefs that’s going to keep them from listening, believing and applying what you’re saying.

RM: Obviously, the Spirit’s power rests on you when you preach, but what would you say that people find poignant or attractive about your preaching?
DP: It’s direct. It’s not self-aggrandizing. I hear people say, “It seems like you are a fellow struggler, you’re preaching to yourself as much as you’re preaching to me.”

I’ve been told a lot that I’m a coach, so I think people feel that they’re being coached in a good way.

There are different metaphors. There’s a guide, which is what a lot of guys call themselves, a spiritual guide. They don’t really have a lot of opinions, they are just there to make suggestions and encourage and do the “find your own way,” kind of thing.  And then there’s the commander that’s standing up in front of everybody telling them what do. “You’ve got to do it my way. Follow me.”  On the other hand, the coach has authority, the coach has a game plan, but he’s calling the best out of you. He’s saying, “I’m here to help you do what God’s calling you to do.”  The other one would be the self-help guru. I’m going to throw some principles so you can change your own life with them.

The coach brings you back to the rules of the game with the big picture of what’s going on. “This isn’t just about this game, this is about our season.  This isn’t just about us getting better; when you get better, we all get better.” So it’s a call to be in community, it’s a call to be under authority, and it’s a call to play your role.

-
See part 1 and part 3 here.

The heart of this website are the Missional Q&A Interviews, updated weekly, where church leaders like you talk about the issues they face on a daily basis.