A lesson from the election – talk to the city

by Charles Lyons

President Obama is an urbanite. The peo­ple who put him in office are urbanites. In my November 2012 Urban Current, “You Live in an Urbanized World”, I told you in so many words who was going to win the elec­tion.

Joel C. Rosenberg writes in his November 8, 2012, blog summarizing a digest of red-tinted statistics “One would think that such a dynam­ic would have helped Romney win …”

No, Joel, we don’t live in that world any­more, and Henry Graber tells us why: “Why has the question of American cities, which not long ago were the site of massive federal government intervention, nearly to a fault, been entirely absent from political discourse this fall? Largely because urbanites vote so reliably for Demo­crats that they tend to be ignored by both par­ties. We’ve scarcely heard the candidates, one of whom lives in Chicago, the other in Boston, even use the word city” (theatlanticcities.com – November 6, 2012).

In the last half of last century, Ameri­can cities were emptying. Now they are bur­geoning. Large minority groups — read black, brown, and the poor — are being pushed into surrounding suburbs and counties changing voting patterns in those regions, even as cen­ter cities fill with post-moderns of many back­grounds.

Steve Huntley opined in Chicago Sun Times November 9, 2012, Romney “lost for tac­tical and strategic reasons. The strategic cause of Romney’s defeat was his poor showing with America’s changing demographics. Latinos are of particular concern as they are the fastest growing minority group.”

In an interview with Diane Sawyer, Speaker of the House John Boehner, respond­ing to the observation that his party’s gotten “too old, too white, and too male,” said “Well, Republicans need to learn — how do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?” Seriously Mr. Boehner? Finally in 2012 you’re thinking about learning to speak to “all Americans”?

There has been a lot of talk about how to “talk.” Huntley specifically cited Romney’s “harsh immigration rhetoric during the pri­maries,” were digging him into a deep hole. He went on, “Social issues, especially abortion and contraception remain vital to women. It’s one thing to be pro-life, but quite another to advance the toxic notion of ‘legitimate rape’ or assert that a rape victim becoming pregnant, is God’s will.” In fact, the two senators whose careless language lost their senate seats were in red states, but red states that have big, blue regions called cities.

Lydia De Pillis writes in the New Republic November 12, 2012, “The GOP can’t afford to ignore cities anymore.” “Mitt Romney’s failure to understand America’s changing demograph­ics, led to his own undoing.” She continues, Republicans will “need to get over their cul­tural aversion to the metropolis.” Republicans didn’t see cities as “something to be solved but something to be exploited,” explains Princeton University history professor Kevin Kruse. Kevin Phillips, in 1969, wrote The Emerging Republi­can Majority in which he outlined a “southern strategy” to wrest white people away from the Democrats by demonizing the black inner cit­ies. “If you look at who he’s talking to,” De Pillis writes, “it’s a suburban strategy.” In 1980, Ron­ald Reagan won the presidency without carry­ing a single major city.

Okay! Where do I stop and ask, “Does any­body see a parallel?” I care about politics; I care far, far more about the Kingdom of God. White evangelicals abandoned the cities. We are still paying the price. Not politically. Spiritually. Our motto appears to have been, “But seek first the American dream and all its benefits, and if you have any time, money, or love leftover, go to an urban rescue mission every now and then.” You can almost overlay every political piece I have cited above with an evangelical layer. The stories are so similar.

  1. White evangelicals left, neglected, or ignored cities. Mind you, God never left.
  2. This exhibited a certain blindness at best, hypocrisy at worst, as the world they prayed to reach moved next door.
  3. Mainstream evangelicals moved more into an “us-and-them” view rather than “pitch­ing-their-tent” among them. See John 1:14. The prevalent, cultural homogeneity seen and heard becomes increasingly obvi­ous. The homogeneous Christian clique remains seemingly oblivious.
  4. The white evangelical establishment is increasingly isolated from the cultural engines and influences they could have been observing (Acts 17:22), salting, and lighting.
  5. They are left to become experts at talking to themselves instead of skilled in speaking to a post-modern mind, leaving churches looking less like and less connected to the world everyone lives in.
  6. This becomes a set-up for, among other things, missing or being disconnected from the rising tide of Hispanic presence.

Where matters. The Holy Spirit led Paul to cities to plant truth-bases called churches because he who impacts cities influences the world. Reach the city — touch the world.

That’s how I see it. I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.