The Theology and Practice of Sharing Ministry with Those in Need
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE OF SHARING MINISTRY WITH THOSE IN NEED APPROVED BY THESIS PROJECT COMMITTEE: Russell W. Dalton Director Francisco Lozada, Jr. Reader Jeffrey Williams Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Joretta Marshall Dean THE THEOLOGY AND PRACTICE OF SHARING MINISTRY WITH THOSE IN NEED by Elizabeth Mae Magill Bachelor of Arts, 1983 St. Lawrence University Canton, NY Master of Divinity, 2002 Episcopal Divinity School Cambridge, MA Project Presented to the Faculty of the Brite Divinity School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry Fort Worth, TX May 2017 Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1 Definition of Terms 3 Is Food Security a Problem in the United States? 5 Outline of Project 7 CHAPTER TWO: THE PROBLEMS OF DIRECT SERVICE CHARITY .................................11 Starting with the Givers, not the Receivers 11 Sustaining Separation from Others 13 Perpetuating Stereotypes 17 Inhibiting Relationship Building and Blocking Evangelism 28 Failing to Recognize the Gifts of People Food Insecure People 33 Maintaining Isolation, Fear, and Oppression 40 Conclusion to Chapter Two 50 CHAPTER THREE: THE BIBLE AND SHARED MINISTRY ..................................................51 A Cultural Studies Hermeneutic 51 Matthew 25:31-46 57 Acts 6:1-7 71 Conclusion: Biblical Guidance for Shared Ministries 85 CHAPTER FOUR: LIBERATION THEOLOGY AND SHARED MINISTRY ..........................87 Material and Spiritual Poverty 90 Conscientization and Solidarity 107 Leadership 114 Conclusion: The Liberation Theology Criteria for Shared Ministry 122 PART ONE SUMMARY: CRITERIA FOR SHARED MINISTRY ..........................................124 Introduction to Part Two 127 CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH PLAN .......................................................................................128 Resources for Shared Ministry 129 Research Design 136 Conclusion to Chapter Five 146 CHAPTER SIX: RESEARCH RESULTS ..................................................................................147 Site Selection 147 Chat and Chew and Sanctuary Angels at Trinity Memorial Church in Philadelphia, PA153 Clay Street Table and Chili Lunch at St. Stephen’s Parish in Portland, OR. 164 Fresh Market at Church for All People in Columbus, OH 183 Project-44 at Acton United Methodist Church in Granbury, TX. 196 Critique of Research Method 199 Implications for Shared Ministry 205 iii CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS .....................................................206 Shared Food Ministry Starts with People Who are Food Insecure 207 Shared Food Ministry is Working Together 209 Shared Food Ministry Creates Church 219 Shared Ministry and Systems Change 225 Opportunities for Further Research 229 PART TWO CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR SHARED MINISTRY ..........................234 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH DOCUMENTS .............................................................................237 APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM .............................................................................................239 APPENDIX C: PROGRAMS CONTACTED FOR INTERVIEWS ..........................................241 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................243 iv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Churches and faith based organizations struggle with how to change the world and serve the needy in ways that are actually helpful for the people in need. Churches are called to help, and want to help, people who are hungry. Unfortunately, when churches fail to consider the long term impact of their food ministries the help may not be helpful or appropriate. While the instinct to give grows out of compassion, charity can demean, depress, and oppress people with needs. It often fails to see those in need as neighbors, as people with abilities, gifts, and knowledge. One possible response to the faults of direct service charity is to work instead to change the systems that create poverty. And yet, as work is done to change the systems that create poverty in the United States, people need food in the meantime. This project explores how churches can address some of the challenges of direct service by engaging in what I shall refer to as shared ministry, a concept I developed at Worcester Fellowship. In 2007, I worked with a partner to start a new church: Worcester Fellowship, an outdoor church of adults without homes, or at risk of losing their housing. This ministry centered on a weekly Sunday lunch and worship outdoors in Worcester, Massachusetts. In 2011, I was at a conference exploring effective ministry in urban churches. At the closing activity, each participant was asked to name something to do to expand his or her church’s outreach to people in need. Although Worcester Fellowship’s congregational leadership team was primarily people who had no housing and others at risk of losing their housing, the church did not engage in any outward mission. People who had enough food came and “did mission to” the members of Worcester Fellowship by bringing and serving lunch, donating gift cards, and visiting the 1 2 ministry; members of Worcester Fellowship received the food. I committed at that conference to turn the Sunday meal into a ministry done with the members of Worcester Fellowship. It took time, and the process hit many snags, but I began to realize that Worcester Fellowship was changing from a lunch program that had worship to a church engaged in the ministry of lunch. Indoor churches continued to bring lunch, but outdoor and indoor people worked together to serve the meal. For the people who brought food, and the people who were food insecure, the shared serving created a sense of community, and that sense of community made Worcester Fellowship into a church. After I left Worcester Fellowship to work for an indoor church, I began to wonder if indoor church could do the same thing that Worcester Fellowship had done. What if food ministries offered by churches with buildings were shared ministries, shared between people who have food security and people who do not? What does shared ministry look like in an indoor context? This project explores the idea that direct service food ministry should be shared ministry: that the people who are food insecure and the people who have enough food should eat together, and work together, to distribute food accordingly. Church-based food ministry is called to provide food for people who need it, but is also called to address the problems created by direct service ministries. To do that it must create community by breaking down the boundaries that divide us. This project argues that shared ministry can help to overcome stereotypes of people living with poverty, can lead to appreciating people who are food insecure as neighbors, and can create a community of belonging to one another. In addition, this project will describe four sites that are using shared ministry. The problems with direct service charity are laid out in Chapter Two, but the implication of much of the recent literature on this suggests that church-based direct service charity should be replaced with community development work. While community development and community 3 organizing are necessary parts of working towards God’s reign on earth; this project argues that it is premature to end direct service ministry. Rather than ending direct service ministry, I propose that churches engage in shared ministry as a strategy to meet people’s immediate needs while building relationships. Those relationships can be further developed to engage in effective community development or community organizing. Shared ministry builds the foundation needed for people with enough food and people without enough food to learn about the systemic causes of poverty and to build solidarity with one another. I am writing from my perspective as a pastor of a progressive, majority white, indoor church in an affluent suburb, working with people who want to do what is best for the people they serve. While I have seven years experience as a pastor to people who live on the streets, in shelters, and at the edges of food security, I am not food insecure. My writing will necessarily be influenced by my identity as a middle-class white woman, ordained with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), living in an almost all white rural community, in a home I own, with more than enough food to eat. Definition of Terms There are many ways to define poverty in the United States. For this project I deal only with the question whether the participants in food ministry are food secure or food insecure. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food insecurity as a measure of an individual or household’s access to “enough food for healthy, active living.”1 In periodic surveys the USDA asks representative samples households ten questions about how often they need to cut back portion sizes or reduce the food they eat because they do not have the money to access 1Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory, and Anita Singh. Household Food Security in the United States in 2015. ERR-2015 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2016, 2, accessed October 5, 2016. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/2137663/err215.pdf. 4 it, and eight additional questions about whether their children sometimes do not have enough food.2 Those who answer affirmatively