Over the last several weeks, I’ve been asked on numerous occasions about how faith has shaped the way I view urbanism and other topic around city building. Today’s edition of Hope in Cities is an attempt to answer that question in some detail. — You’ve seen the before and after pictures. The once-great places ravaged by the suburban experiment and auto-centricity; highways that decimated historic neighborhoods and displaced marginalized peoples; paradise paved to put up a parking lot (shoutout to Joni Mitchell).
You make some great points, but I think we should keep this issue separate from Religion. Unfortunately a lot of people who think critically about issues like this stop taking things seriously once religion is introduced. That's not to say your religious views aren't merited or relevant, but perhaps they aren't what this movement needs to continue growing. You can still incorporate the ideas without incorporating religious-speak (such as restoring the world from sin, etc.) which tends to get things written off as not rooted in logic (even though I do follow your logic and agree with it).
Sarah, thanks for reading and I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I know long replies can often give the impression of anger or contention, so I hope the likely length of my own response below doesn't come across that way whatsoever. The discussion we're having is a passion point for me, so I'm actually just excited to jump in and provide your engagement the thoughtfulness it deserves! :)
The first thing I think would be worth touching on is the idea of what constitutes "religion." I'd contend there are two basic "types" of religion, particularly in the West. And I think both types show themselves in all of the major faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.):
The first type is a religion or faith that is embraced primarily because of culture/tradition (as was the case in my family growing up - "we're Italian, so that makes us Catholics!") or because that faith (in perception or reality) aligns with your preexisting cultural/political preferences. Rather than starting with "Was Jesus who he said he was?", "Is the Torah true or simply a helpful set of stories with some life lessons," or "Do I believe Muhammad's claims?", the primary consideration is simply "Does Jesus (or insert religion/faith leader here) agree with how I already see the world?"
I would contend this is the predominant form of religion (particularly amongst self-professing evangelical Christian and Catholics) that exists in the West, especially in the United States. And because it is so common, I think many that fall into this category may not even realize 1) that they belong in this "bucket" or 2) that there is another "way to do religion" at all. But the key characteristic of this category is that the religion or faith is *chosen* by the professed believer.
The other type of religion or faith is that which is embraced primarily because the professed believer has arrived at the conclusion that the claims of the faith are simply true, regardless of preexisting moral alignment.
To differentiate between the two types using Christianity as an example:
Someone in the first category identifies as a Christian because they were raised in church, because their family is Christian, or because they seem to believe that Christianity/the teachings of Jesus align well with their political views (be they liberal or conservative). It "fits" with their life, almost as a sort of accessory. This is really just another (generally conservative and southern) version of radical individualism. As Tim Keller puts it, "If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself."
The second person concludes that, whether Christianity agrees with their preconceived notions of morality or not, Jesus is who he said he was - God made flesh, who lived a perfect life and died in place of man to bear the weight of sin and restore relationship between God and man. They arrive at this conclusion not because it sounds good or is a nice story, but simply because they believe it to be as true as any other fact about life. And for that reason, it frankly doesn't matter whether what Christ taught aligns with their preconceived moral compass or culture - to them, He is God, and knows better than them whether they like it or not, and it is therefore worth pursuing alignment with him in all ways, because as maker and sustainer of both them and the world they live in, he knows how it (and they) should work better than they ever could, even when they can't see why. I would consider myself someone in this latter "bucket."
To an unreligious person, the difference here may seem like overly complicated religious nuance and jargon, but the difference matters deeply when we talk about whether "religion" should be kept separate from urbanism or anything else, and whether a "religious" person makes for a useful ally or "teammate" in a cause.
The person in the first category is an ideological steamroller. They found and weaponized a selected a religion as a means of imposing their own preexisting preferences on the world, and will seek to do the same with urbanism or any other movement they become a part of.
The person in the second category seeks to (imperfectly) operate out of a humble conviction and understanding of what they understand to be true about the world. Humility makes a far greater ally than narcissism. Sure, someone in "my bucket" may still hope that others around them find faith, but that desire (and hopefully, approach) comes from a radically different place from the first bucket. Rather than trying to build a political coalition, a "moral majority," a "Christian nation", or anything of that sort, a person in the second bucket simply believes (at least, speaking from a Christian standpoint) they have discovered something that is both true and incredibly good news, and desire for others to find the same joy, hope, and freedom that they have.
In a secularizing culture, you're absolutely right that the "utility" of speaking from a perspective of faith to grow a movement is probably not very high. Case in point - I've lost four subscribers just since publishing this yesterday, which is the first time I've seen a drop at all since starting the newsletter in July.
But the perspective I'm coming from is not that Christianity is a good "growth tool" for the urbanist movement. You and I agree it won't be a good marketing ploy. But I think it offers something deeper than that, and that's what I was looking to speak to above (and plan to do over the next few weeks). And by "offers something," I don't mean that the urbanism movement should "become Christian." I'm simply suggesting that for an individual urbanist, it can offer something powerful that is not found somewhere else, and for an urbanist that is already a Christian (such as myself), it already does, and I wanted to explain how that plays out.
You're right - religious language can at times certainly be confusing. And it's never a good idea to overcomplicate something that can be said simply and accessibly. In this specific context (the content above), I felt it necessary to explain using what you would call religious-speak beacuse the ideas I explored are something I'd contend are explicitly Christian, so there's not really "unChristian" or non-religious language that can actually capture those sentiments effectively. Whenever that's true (be it of Christianity or some other faith or worldview), using the language of the faith or worldview may not be a popular or mass-marketing-friendly way to communicate, but is necessary to accurately and effectively communicate ideas, and is therefore worthwhile in my view.
If someone chooses to disregard ideas simply because they are religious in nature, then that's something that's out of my control. Personally, I'd rather communicate clearly to a smaller audience than water down such a central part of what has formed me personally. We can generally only pretend to be someone we're not for so long, so I find it better so simply "put it all out there" to however many people will hear it. If someone chooses not to engage, that's perfectly fine, and the beauty of having such a vast array of content offerings on the internet! There's truly something for everyone.
I hope this is helpful, and again, really appreciate your thoughtful and good-faith engagement!
You make some great points, but I think we should keep this issue separate from Religion. Unfortunately a lot of people who think critically about issues like this stop taking things seriously once religion is introduced. That's not to say your religious views aren't merited or relevant, but perhaps they aren't what this movement needs to continue growing. You can still incorporate the ideas without incorporating religious-speak (such as restoring the world from sin, etc.) which tends to get things written off as not rooted in logic (even though I do follow your logic and agree with it).
Sarah, thanks for reading and I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I know long replies can often give the impression of anger or contention, so I hope the likely length of my own response below doesn't come across that way whatsoever. The discussion we're having is a passion point for me, so I'm actually just excited to jump in and provide your engagement the thoughtfulness it deserves! :)
The first thing I think would be worth touching on is the idea of what constitutes "religion." I'd contend there are two basic "types" of religion, particularly in the West. And I think both types show themselves in all of the major faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.):
The first type is a religion or faith that is embraced primarily because of culture/tradition (as was the case in my family growing up - "we're Italian, so that makes us Catholics!") or because that faith (in perception or reality) aligns with your preexisting cultural/political preferences. Rather than starting with "Was Jesus who he said he was?", "Is the Torah true or simply a helpful set of stories with some life lessons," or "Do I believe Muhammad's claims?", the primary consideration is simply "Does Jesus (or insert religion/faith leader here) agree with how I already see the world?"
I would contend this is the predominant form of religion (particularly amongst self-professing evangelical Christian and Catholics) that exists in the West, especially in the United States. And because it is so common, I think many that fall into this category may not even realize 1) that they belong in this "bucket" or 2) that there is another "way to do religion" at all. But the key characteristic of this category is that the religion or faith is *chosen* by the professed believer.
The other type of religion or faith is that which is embraced primarily because the professed believer has arrived at the conclusion that the claims of the faith are simply true, regardless of preexisting moral alignment.
To differentiate between the two types using Christianity as an example:
Someone in the first category identifies as a Christian because they were raised in church, because their family is Christian, or because they seem to believe that Christianity/the teachings of Jesus align well with their political views (be they liberal or conservative). It "fits" with their life, almost as a sort of accessory. This is really just another (generally conservative and southern) version of radical individualism. As Tim Keller puts it, "If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself."
The second person concludes that, whether Christianity agrees with their preconceived notions of morality or not, Jesus is who he said he was - God made flesh, who lived a perfect life and died in place of man to bear the weight of sin and restore relationship between God and man. They arrive at this conclusion not because it sounds good or is a nice story, but simply because they believe it to be as true as any other fact about life. And for that reason, it frankly doesn't matter whether what Christ taught aligns with their preconceived moral compass or culture - to them, He is God, and knows better than them whether they like it or not, and it is therefore worth pursuing alignment with him in all ways, because as maker and sustainer of both them and the world they live in, he knows how it (and they) should work better than they ever could, even when they can't see why. I would consider myself someone in this latter "bucket."
To an unreligious person, the difference here may seem like overly complicated religious nuance and jargon, but the difference matters deeply when we talk about whether "religion" should be kept separate from urbanism or anything else, and whether a "religious" person makes for a useful ally or "teammate" in a cause.
The person in the first category is an ideological steamroller. They found and weaponized a selected a religion as a means of imposing their own preexisting preferences on the world, and will seek to do the same with urbanism or any other movement they become a part of.
The person in the second category seeks to (imperfectly) operate out of a humble conviction and understanding of what they understand to be true about the world. Humility makes a far greater ally than narcissism. Sure, someone in "my bucket" may still hope that others around them find faith, but that desire (and hopefully, approach) comes from a radically different place from the first bucket. Rather than trying to build a political coalition, a "moral majority," a "Christian nation", or anything of that sort, a person in the second bucket simply believes (at least, speaking from a Christian standpoint) they have discovered something that is both true and incredibly good news, and desire for others to find the same joy, hope, and freedom that they have.
In a secularizing culture, you're absolutely right that the "utility" of speaking from a perspective of faith to grow a movement is probably not very high. Case in point - I've lost four subscribers just since publishing this yesterday, which is the first time I've seen a drop at all since starting the newsletter in July.
But the perspective I'm coming from is not that Christianity is a good "growth tool" for the urbanist movement. You and I agree it won't be a good marketing ploy. But I think it offers something deeper than that, and that's what I was looking to speak to above (and plan to do over the next few weeks). And by "offers something," I don't mean that the urbanism movement should "become Christian." I'm simply suggesting that for an individual urbanist, it can offer something powerful that is not found somewhere else, and for an urbanist that is already a Christian (such as myself), it already does, and I wanted to explain how that plays out.
You're right - religious language can at times certainly be confusing. And it's never a good idea to overcomplicate something that can be said simply and accessibly. In this specific context (the content above), I felt it necessary to explain using what you would call religious-speak beacuse the ideas I explored are something I'd contend are explicitly Christian, so there's not really "unChristian" or non-religious language that can actually capture those sentiments effectively. Whenever that's true (be it of Christianity or some other faith or worldview), using the language of the faith or worldview may not be a popular or mass-marketing-friendly way to communicate, but is necessary to accurately and effectively communicate ideas, and is therefore worthwhile in my view.
If someone chooses to disregard ideas simply because they are religious in nature, then that's something that's out of my control. Personally, I'd rather communicate clearly to a smaller audience than water down such a central part of what has formed me personally. We can generally only pretend to be someone we're not for so long, so I find it better so simply "put it all out there" to however many people will hear it. If someone chooses not to engage, that's perfectly fine, and the beauty of having such a vast array of content offerings on the internet! There's truly something for everyone.
I hope this is helpful, and again, really appreciate your thoughtful and good-faith engagement!