Musings on Community Development

Today's BUILD was pretty cool. We visited the Lawndale Christian Health Center, a place I've often passed by but never stopped into. (Sorry for ending a sentence with a preposition.) Bruce Miller, COO and CFO of the center, gave us a talk about how LCHC got started, what it provides for the community, what principles it's based on, and so forth. Really well-done, informative, and open discussion about the opportunities and challenges of the work they do.

Three thinking points surfaced for me today as we sat around the table with Bruce.

The first is a question Bruce posed to us, which is one I wrestle with all the time. The question went something like, In order to change a community, is access to quality healthcare alone the whole solution? Of course not was my response. Though having a solid clinic and pharmacy with caring, competent medical professionals is certainly necessary, it is insufficient. Especially, in light of data Bruce shared about smoking habits (and the effect on children with asthma) and eating/exercise habits (and the diabetes and other conditions that result) in poor neighborhoods. These practices can only be treated -- not eliminated -- by external resources. Bruce used the data to show why LCHC needs Lawndale Church -- why it would be insufficient for the health ministry to function in an isolated way. I agree. But this matter also got me thinking about how (almost) every area of change for a community requires the community members' themselves to change -- be it education, housing (spending/savings habits), or whatever. I know this is a tough thing to think about because we don't want to go to the other extreme of blaming the victim. But I can't help but think how if we don't get this piece of the puzzle right, then we will not have the impact we can in terms of transforming or redeeming individuals, let alone a community.

Second matter. We were posed with the question of how an org. like LCDC / LCHC remains Christian while providing services for which they receive government funds. Orgs like the Y, the Salvation Army, and Christian hospitals, which have clear Christian roots but which are not particularly Christian today, were given as examples. I think this is an interesting question, esp. given how easy it is to be concerned about a cause (like social justice or health care or housing) that how you address that cause becomes a lesser priority (i.e., do we really need Christian workers in our clinic, or do we just need good people?; isn't the main thing to provide a quality service?; who cares, as long as we do it in a 'good' way?). The fact that this Lawndale guy even asked this question was impressive to me, because I think sometimes when trying to be relevant to our culture and to meet its needs, it's all too easy to lose your Christian distinctive. And when that's done, of course you can still provide a service, but it's certainly not the same. Having your doctor treat your illness and pray for you is a double blessing. And there just might be a slippery slope that starts when the distinctive's lost. On the flip side, though, I've been in a situation where the Christianity was heightened and the service provided was mediocre (or sub-par, even). In that case, I found myself wanting the service to be good even at the expense of the Christianity being gone. (ex: Who wants to go to a Christian doctor who's nice but whose medical care is so poor, you're worse off health-wise?) This is an important issue for which there are no easy answers.

Which brings me to the final point. I'm noticing a pattern. Those who embrace relocation to the city -- and who insist that this is the best and perhaps only really effective way to minister in the 'hood -- seem to have a line over which they won't cross. And that line is relocating their own kids into the local schools. I have yet to meet someone who has sent their own kids to the local schools, and I certainly understand the reasons. (And I write this knowing I'd likely do the same thing myself with my own child.) It's interesting, though, to know that there are limits to relocation. There are some points where people hold back. Will people live on the same block? Yes. Will they go to the same church? Yep. Will they use the same clinic? Definitely. Will they send their kids to the same school? Nope. Either they'll homeschool or they'll send their kids to a Christian school in the hood (or to a magnet school/charter outside of the community). I completely understand the reasons why. I don't think I would sacrifice my own child's future or safety myself. But, I think the same logic that's applied to other aspects of community living (you don't have the same level of investment if you're not present) should be applied to public education. I think if it were, we'd see a massive change in the quality of schooling. I guess everyone feels that sacrifice is too great to make, though.