Blue Collar Ministry: Facing Economic and Social Realities of Working People

Rating:
Summary: "Blue-collar people are not abstractions . . ."
Review: If the church is to develop a relevant ministry, it must have an understanding of and an appreciation for blue-collar life-styles, the conditions that shape these life-styles, and the need to survive class bias which causes inequities of opportunity. Sample brushes aside the stereotyped caricatures so often associated with factory workers, to present a realistic picture of the winners, losers, and survivors. His study challenges churches to develop a sensitive response to blue-collar needs-one that will bridge the gap between societal achievement myths and blue-collar realities by proclaiming that all persons through God's love are of infinite worth apart from who they are and what they do for a living. Sample describes many opportunities for relevant blue-collar ministry through worship that truly reflects the working experience, church programming that promotes close bonds of belonging, and community organization to cope effectively with inequities of opportunity. Pastors will be especially helped in their ministries by the suggestions for gaining acceptance in the blue-collar culture through an understanding of reciprocal relationships and in-depth knowledge of the community.

Rating:
Summary: Not just for blue-collar pastors
Review: In his book, Blue Collar Ministry, Tex Sample asserts that in order to have relevance in today¡¦s society and in order to have an effective ministry, the Church, specifically its pastors, must learn to understand the blue-collar working class in America. To this end, he gives us great insight into the ¡§economic and social realities of working people¡¨ and develops a strategy to galvanize and propel them into a politically viable syndicate. Mostly, though, this is a minister¡¦s manual on how to engage a congregation on terms that are germane.
While this book is compelling in highlighting what certainly is painted to be an underserved population, it is difficult to reconcile the extreme focus on differences with a vision of a unified Body of Christ. I think it is very important for those in ministry to know about, and be prepared to deal with, the issues affecting any population of Christians and non-Christians where the Church is situated ¡V which, of course, should be everywhere. What ends up happening here, however, it seems to me, is an offer-attention to otherness that ends up reinforcing the ideas of class-warfare and ultimately, I think, undermines the Gospel¡¦s vision of union with each other within a Kingdom community.
Throughout the book I found myself recoiling at the ideas of social stratification. But more fundamentally, the book left me with a feeling of smothering sadness. This is largely likely, I am sure, to my class background and economic situation ¡V being confronted with the facts of how people are oppressed is a hard pill to swallow when I realize that I am part of the oppressive order. Yet, I think there is more at play than that. My sadness also comes from a longing to see the Kingdom of God manifest here on earth. This book does not go far enough in pointing the Church toward the building of the unified Kingdom community. True, preoccupation with getting food on the table surely supercedes attention to ideology in many people¡¦s lives. Yet it seems to me that Sample puts these things away and against the Gospel, as if they should be attended to separately and first. I believe that they do not need to be separated. They can and should be the same.
Much of the book is spent on stylistic concerns about worship. Sample¡¦s focus is far too narrow. Having spent a fair portion of my childhood in a Charismatic Christian church, I find my experience to belie his descriptions. The church that I grew up in was made up of lawyers, carpenters, accountants, coal miners, college professors, doctors and so on. The worship was charismatic, with an abundance of ¡§Amens!¡¨ and raised hands. I don¡¦t believe this temper to have been a result of any social impulse or need to contrast with the weekday lives of the congregants. It was a result of the understanding of what a relationship with God meant, and what the Christian¡¦s response to God was supposed to be. This understanding could not have been completely founded in the cultural/economic vantage-points, or classes, of the people because the people were so various in these respects. This understanding came from the communal seeking of God¡¦s Word and will. It was a picture of what, I think, was intended for the Church: we are new creations, formed to come together in community. I do not think that Sample is suggesting that the ƒ±blue-collar pastor abandon a focus on building a Kingdom community, but he does seem to draw rather limiting borders on that community.
Sample goes on to say that the blue collar pastor should engage in a quid pro quo with the people of the community. Certainly, pastors should involve themselves in the practical matters of their congregants¡¦ lives, in the same way that Jesus involved himself in the practical matters of his followers. We see him over and over dealing with the immediate needs of the poor, sick and disadvantaged, as well as with those of the rich and advantaged. Yet he did not serve for service sake, or for the psychological need of the people to respond in kind, but for the building of a Kingdom community made up of poor and rich, disadvantaged and advantaged. In every case he served them toward a purpose: ushering in a new Kingdom. This is no different for uptown churches, transitional churches or blue-collar churches. A good pastor, of course, should always be ready to roll up his sleeves alongside his congregation. This is love, but Sample¡¦s argument for the quid pro quo seems overblown.
A final point I¡¦ll contend is Sample¡¦s description of power as a fundamental need. Not only does this description contradict his theses on the religion of winning, but it flies in the face of the Gospel. I do not believe that power is a fundamental need of humans. It may be a fundamental desire, but that desire is born out of our fallen-ness. In fact, it is the genesis of our fallen condition. The quest for knowledge, Adam and Eve¡¦s quest, was no more than a desire to have power over the part of God¡¦s creation that was withheld from them. Truly, there are classes within our culture that are powerless. The aim, though, of the Church, is not to push for a shift in power, thereby further engaging in the religion of winning only in the reverse of what has been. That shift has already occurred in the defeat of death by Christ. The role of the Church is to work at teaching all people to serve and love each other, no matter their class or economic situation.
In sum, Sample¡¦s suggestions run far too close to a Marxist ideology. Overthrow does not have to occur in order for liberation to be manifest in the lives of the working class. As Christians, we have to model the manner in which Christ resisted the culture of his day. He worked at transforming the heart condition of the people by serving them, by showing them how to walk together, to know and love each other as brothers and sisters. Pastors and Christians of all types of churches must follow this example.

Rating:
Summary: Not just for blue-collar pastors
Review: In his book, Blue Collar Ministry, Tex Sample asserts that in order to have relevance in today¡¦s society and in order to have an effective ministry, the Church, specifically its pastors, must learn to understand the blue-collar working class in America. To this end, he gives us great insight into the ¡§economic and social realities of working people¡¨ and develops a strategy to galvanize and propel them into a politically viable syndicate. Mostly, though, this is a minister¡¦s manual on how to engage a congregation on terms that are germane.
While this book is compelling in highlighting what certainly is painted to be an underserved population, it is difficult to reconcile the extreme focus on differences with a vision of a unified Body of Christ. I think it is very important for those in ministry to know about, and be prepared to deal with, the issues affecting any population of Christians and non-Christians where the Church is situated ¡V which, of course, should be everywhere. What ends up happening here, however, it seems to me, is an offer-attention to otherness that ends up reinforcing the ideas of class-warfare and ultimately, I think, undermines the Gospel¡¦s vision of union with each other within a Kingdom community.
Throughout the book I found myself recoiling at the ideas of social stratification. But more fundamentally, the book left me with a feeling of smothering sadness. This is largely likely, I am sure, to my class background and economic situation ¡V being confronted with the facts of how people are oppressed is a hard pill to swallow when I realize that I am part of the oppressive order. Yet, I think there is more at play than that. My sadness also comes from a longing to see the Kingdom of God manifest here on earth. This book does not go far enough in pointing the Church toward the building of the unified Kingdom community. True, preoccupation with getting food on the table surely supercedes attention to ideology in many people¡¦s lives. Yet it seems to me that Sample puts these things away and against the Gospel, as if they should be attended to separately and first. I believe that they do not need to be separated. They can and should be the same.
Much of the book is spent on stylistic concerns about worship. Sample¡¦s focus is far too narrow. Having spent a fair portion of my childhood in a Charismatic Christian church, I find my experience to belie his descriptions. The church that I grew up in was made up of lawyers, carpenters, accountants, coal miners, college professors, doctors and so on. The worship was charismatic, with an abundance of ¡§Amens!¡¨ and raised hands. I don¡¦t believe this temper to have been a result of any social impulse or need to contrast with the weekday lives of the congregants. It was a result of the understanding of what a relationship with God meant, and what the Christian¡¦s response to God was supposed to be. This understanding could not have been completely founded in the cultural/economic vantage-points, or classes, of the people because the people were so various in these respects. This understanding came from the communal seeking of God¡¦s Word and will. It was a picture of what, I think, was intended for the Church: we are new creations, formed to come together in community. I do not think that Sample is suggesting that the ƒ±blue-collar pastor abandon a focus on building a Kingdom community, but he does seem to draw rather limiting borders on that community.
Sample goes on to say that the blue collar pastor should engage in a quid pro quo with the people of the community. Certainly, pastors should involve themselves in the practical matters of their congregants¡¦ lives, in the same way that Jesus involved himself in the practical matters of his followers. We see him over and over dealing with the immediate needs of the poor, sick and disadvantaged, as well as with those of the rich and advantaged. Yet he did not serve for service sake, or for the psychological need of the people to respond in kind, but for the building of a Kingdom community made up of poor and rich, disadvantaged and advantaged. In every case he served them toward a purpose: ushering in a new Kingdom. This is no different for uptown churches, transitional churches or blue-collar churches. A good pastor, of course, should always be ready to roll up his sleeves alongside his congregation. This is love, but Sample¡¦s argument for the quid pro quo seems overblown.
A final point I¡¦ll contend is Sample¡¦s description of power as a fundamental need. Not only does this description contradict his theses on the religion of winning, but it flies in the face of the Gospel. I do not believe that power is a fundamental need of humans. It may be a fundamental desire, but that desire is born out of our fallen-ness. In fact, it is the genesis of our fallen condition. The quest for knowledge, Adam and Eve¡¦s quest, was no more than a desire to have power over the part of God¡¦s creation that was withheld from them. Truly, there are classes within our culture that are powerless. The aim, though, of the Church, is not to push for a shift in power, thereby further engaging in the religion of winning only in the reverse of what has been. That shift has already occurred in the defeat of death by Christ. The role of the Church is to work at teaching all people to serve and love each other, no matter their class or economic situation.
In sum, Sample¡¦s suggestions run far too close to a Marxist ideology. Overthrow does not have to occur in order for liberation to be manifest in the lives of the working class. As Christians, we have to model the manner in which Christ resisted the culture of his day. He worked at transforming the heart condition of the people by serving them, by showing them how to walk together, to know and love each other as brothers and sisters. Pastors and Christians of all types of churches must follow this example.