There is no reason to be impressed by the wave city center church plants in American evangelicalism. Socially speaking, it’s no different than planting a church in the suburbs. Protestants have been locating Christianity among the elite since the Reformation.

Future city center planting in large cities will reach the same economic demographic as planters did during the wave of suburban planting in the 1980s and 1990s. Joel Kotkin, Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University explains why:

America’s largest cities are increasingly divided into three classes: the affluent, the poor, and the nomadic class of young people who generally come to the city for a relatively brief period and then leave. New York, the aspirational city of my grandparents, now has the smallest share of middle-income families in the nation, according to a recent Brookings Institution study, with Los Angeles and San Francisco not far behind. In 1980 Manhattan, New York’s wealthiest borough, ranked 17th among U.S. counties for social inequality; by 2007 Bloomberg’s “luxury city” was first, with the top fifth earning 52 times the income of the lowest fifth, a disparity roughly comparable to that of Namibia.

If an evangelical denomination or church planting network is sending a church planter to a city like New York, Chicago, San Fransisco, Philadelphia, etc. the church planter will have little-to-no-contact with the city’s working classes and the poor (unless the poor are at times objectified as those to whom to do “justice” to not people to be loved and build community with as equals which is a challenge that men like Shawn Casselberry raise.).

Moreover, there are some discussion about whether or not the “city center” and “white” are becoming synonyms. As such, a center city plant will be predominantly white and if it has minorities they will be of the elite. Ethnic minorities of lower classes will likely not a part of church. Comparisons to the church in Galatia or Rev. 7:9 are, therefore, unwarranted unless the diversity will be along the axises for race and class.

So, what’s so impressive about creating churches for the elite and their younger siblings (the “nomadic class of young people”)? Nothing really. They are just as good and needed as suburban ones. The questions is: Who’s planting churches for the poor in the major cities? Who’s loving the poor as equals and not objects of ministry and mission by practicing the are of “white submission” (as Casselberry describes)?

The future of city center churches in America’s largest cities churches are perfect for individualistic materialistic Americans (maybe too perfect) because they will allow Christians to pursue materialism and hedonism while assuaging their guilt with proximity to the poor as protection against any charge of sumptuousness. Moreover, the poor will serve as a permanent theater for the practice of “justice.” How convenient is this? “We live in the city because we make it better (cosmetically for us) and work for justice (using the poor who serve us). Those loser suburban Christians can’t say that because they don’t engage the poor.” (well, at least not yet)

Kotkin concludes with what I would consider the future of those involved in the most dynamic and missional church plants in America: the metropolitan cities in the West are going to miss middle and working classes (which is most of America) and may inadvertently treat the poor simply as ministry objects as Casselberry challenges us to consider. From Kotkin:

Given these global realities, it might be time for our urban boosters to curb their enthusiasm for the “luxury city” and refocus on how to meet the aspirations of their middle- and working-class residents. If they don’t, lack of opportunity will drive more and more of this crucial aspirational class farther and farther away, mostly to smaller cities and suburbs that still offer “an inventory of the possible.”

Kotkin highlights Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Raleigh, Durham, and the heartland cities of Columbus, Indianapolis, Des Moines, Omaha, Sioux Falls, and Fargo as America’s most dynamic communities. The future of racial and economic diversity are the medium-size cities not urban playgrounds for the elite like New York, Chicago, San Fransisco, etc.

If you’re looking for the radical missional churches in the future don’t allow a 1995-caricature of “the city” to lead you to believe that planting a church in a “luxury city” is a big deal. What I love about the Anglicans is that they are very open about reaching the elite and feel no need to use tags like “loving the city,” “serving the city,” “shaloming the city,” etc. to establish churches to guide the passions of the elites.
I still believe that the elite need the gospel and the poor need help so these churches can do many good things but there’s no need to think of these ministry models as impressive, for that look to Memphis.

We simply need more truth in support/fund raising advertising. It’s all good but can we just call it for what it really is instead of promoting these efforts for something they are not.

Anthony Bradley is an Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics at The King’s College, NYC. This commentary is taken from Bradley’s blog, The Institute and is used with permission of the author.