Andrew Wilson recently restarted the debate about the strategic focus of cities (see also here) which has caused me to reflect on the question, why cities? It seems to me that of all the reasons suggested it’s the one about influencing culture that I think stands out.

As increasingly we live in a post-Christian, pluralist and secular society, Christians are asking the question how do we influence for the good the society and culture we live in. Without the coercive power of government (like say Saudi Arabia) or political weight (like say America) and with tradition and history a spent force, how can we affect our culture?

Much of the way we have responded to this question is encouraging, for example the Everything conference or a renewed interest and investment in apologetics and public theology. However, it seems to me that how we’ve connected this to church planting may be a case of two plus two equals a number that is not four.

Let’s take, oh I don’t know, say a church in the City of London and then ask some questions based on some of Andrew’s observations.

1. We’re there because the people live there. Well, no you’re not. The City of London only has a resident population of around 11,000 which is not as many as Kingsteignton, Devon. True more than three hundred thousand people work there but they are not there when the church is there.
2. There aren’t enough churches in the city. No, that’s not true either. The City has 40 traditional churches and a host of new churches making it massively over represented.
3. We’re there to influence the culture. Maybe, maybe but given (1) you have to ask if that’s the best place.
4. The influencers live here. Statistically that’s not likely, unless you count the Queen.
5. If you want to influence a nation you need to be in the city. Well, in the UK, there’s a much better argument for saying if you want to influence a nation you need to be in Oxford. Or Cambridge. That’s it.
6. If you want to build a big church you need to be in the city. Hard to argue with this one, if you’re in the middle then everyone can get to you.
7. Lots of deprivation? Oh come off it.
8. Multi-cultural? Not in your borough.
9. It is cool. Got me there

This might come across as a cynical city church bashing but not really. I’m just trying to illustrate that the strongest argument and weakest argument is its location. By being in the middle people are pulled in because in cities people are more willing to travel, and the nature of cities mean people often have more attachment to the middle than they do to the area they actually live in.

Of course picking on the City of London is an easy target and it’s actually surrounded by densely populated boroughs, although they may have very different feel and needs but I’ve used it as an example to have a discussion on this city focused strategy.

Is there no point in being in the middle, is it an exercise in vanity? Hardly. Gospel churches of substance anywhere can be a force for good and renewal in our cities, but I am saying that the issue of life in a city is far more complicated than we imagined. Influencing a city or a nation is also not as straightforward as simply planting a church in the city centre.