Thread: Do Reformed Churches "Snub" the poor, uneducated believers?

I have been thinking about wealth and the reformed church, as it is now (compared to the days of the apostles and the days of the reformers). In my experience, there are a lot more wealthy (and well-educated) people in reformed churches than there are those of the lower, less-educated people. Is this a misconception? Is it something that is restricted to my part of the country? If, indeed, the reformed church has a higher percentage of wealthy, educated people than poor, uneducated people, why is that so?

Also, in my experience, folks who are well off in the reformed church tend to snub their noses at the lower, uneducated in the church. Keep in mind that my experience in the reformed church is restricted to one part of the country where financial status and education determines who you associate with.

When I look at the apostles, I see a mixed bag of folks. On the one hand, you have well-educated Paul, on the other hand, you have poor, uneducated Peter. Status and education made no difference.

Take this a step further. Does the reformed church (as a whole) welcome or shun the poorer, uneducated classes? If they shun them, what should we do about it?

This is a stereotype that is true in some cases but not others.

I've seen that usually smarter people tend to be Reformed. This is because good and necessary consequence is not something that uneducated people can really grasp. Fortunately for us, Reformed churches also preach the plain and simple gospel. I think in the North, Reformed church have a much larger spread of wealth and education than in the South. Even in my two churches, there is a wide variety among farmers as to wealth, social prestige, and education. This is, of course, no dig at the South (I am a born Southerner, and an emancipationist Confederate, if that makes any sense).

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

I have been thinking about wealth and the reformed church, as it is now (compared to the days of the apostles and the days of the reformers). In my experience, there are a lot more wealthy (and well-educated) people in reformed churches than there are those of the lower, less-educated people. Is this a misconception? Is it something that is restricted to my part of the country? If, indeed, the reformed church has a higher percentage of wealthy, educated people than poor, uneducated people, why is that so?

Also, in my experience, folks who are well off in the reformed church tend to snub their noses at the lower, uneducated in the church. Keep in mind that my experience in the reformed church is restricted to one part of the country where financial status and education determines who you associate with.

When I look at the apostles, I see a mixed bag of folks. On the one hand, you have well-educated Paul, on the other hand, you have poor, uneducated Peter. Status and education made no difference.

Take this a step further. Does the reformed church (as a whole) welcome or shun the poorer, uneducated classes? If they shun them, what should we do about it?

I pastor a Free Reformed congregation and almost all of them are, or were farmers. In Scotland, where I received my license, many of those members were or are crofters (farmers). There are 5 major Reformed Churches in this little town of Lacombe, perhaps as many as 2000 members, most of which are High School grads and not much further. Two of my elders are farmers, and one deacon is a plumber. The others have some secondary education. I think it might be a misnomer to think that the Reformed are better educated or better off than others, or that we look down our noses at Joe Sixpack. Truth appeals to all kinds of souls, at every station and point in life. Serious and conscientious people are from every strata in society. I'd say that 8% of my congregation have something beyond a High School diploma. Now we are country folk, and a city church would garner a different demographic.

As to the "poor", our deacon's fund is used regularly throughout the year.

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

I have been thinking about wealth and the reformed church, as it is now (compared to the days of the apostles and the days of the reformers). In my experience, there are a lot more wealthy (and well-educated) people in reformed churches than there are those of the lower, less-educated people. Is this a misconception? Is it something that is restricted to my part of the country? If, indeed, the reformed church has a higher percentage of wealthy, educated people than poor, uneducated people, why is that so?

Also, in my experience, folks who are well off in the reformed church tend to snub their noses at the lower, uneducated in the church. Keep in mind that my experience in the reformed church is restricted to one part of the country where financial status and education determines who you associate with.

When I look at the apostles, I see a mixed bag of folks. On the one hand, you have well-educated Paul, on the other hand, you have poor, uneducated Peter. Status and education made no difference.

Take this a step further. Does the reformed church (as a whole) welcome or shun the poorer, uneducated classes? If they shun them, what should we do about it?

I believe if we look to its roots, ie the Dutch, we must recognize culturally how they are. Living in "little Geneva" Holland Mi area, the dutch do have the tendancy to not be very warm people. Very unemotional. But with newer generations 'mixed breeding' dutch with non dutch, you are seeing a change in behavior. Once the old school dies off I believe we will see a resurgeance in an attitude of care for the poor and less educated. J, you are speaking of true blue bloods with deep reformed segregated roots. It is lamentable, but not a definition for all. The way some act, one could almost be led to believe that God is a segregationist, bringing the Gospel to WASPS only, yet we know this could not be farther from the truth.

The hard part of this transition from entitlement attitude to pure compassion comes a strain of liberalism. We always pick extremes, that is our detriment.

Originally Posted by JOwen

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

I have been thinking about wealth and the reformed church, as it is now (compared to the days of the apostles and the days of the reformers). In my experience, there are a lot more wealthy (and well-educated) people in reformed churches than there are those of the lower, less-educated people. Is this a misconception? Is it something that is restricted to my part of the country? If, indeed, the reformed church has a higher percentage of wealthy, educated people than poor, uneducated people, why is that so?

Also, in my experience, folks who are well off in the reformed church tend to snub their noses at the lower, uneducated in the church. Keep in mind that my experience in the reformed church is restricted to one part of the country where financial status and education determines who you associate with.

When I look at the apostles, I see a mixed bag of folks. On the one hand, you have well-educated Paul, on the other hand, you have poor, uneducated Peter. Status and education made no difference.

Take this a step further. Does the reformed church (as a whole) welcome or shun the poorer, uneducated classes? If they shun them, what should we do about it?

I pastor a Free Reformed congregation and almost all of them are, or were farmers. In Scotland, where I received my license, many of those members were or are crofters (farmers). There are 5 major Reformed Churches in this little town of Lacombe, perhaps as many as 2000 members, most of which are High School grads and not much further. Two of my elders are farmers, and one deacon is a plumber. The others have some secondary education. I think it might be a misnomer to think that the Reformed are better educated or better off than others, or that we look down our noses at Joe Sixpack. Truth appeals to all kinds of souls, at every station and point in life. Serious and conscientious people are from every strata in society. I'd say that 8% of my congregation have something beyond a High School diploma. Now we are country folk, and a city church would garner a different demographic.

As to the "poor", our deacon's fund is used regularly throughout the year.

I am happy to know that what I've seen is probably more typical of my region than it is of other places in the USA. My own church is a hodge-podge, and I don't sense this "class distinction" that I have in other reformed congregations in my part of the Southern USA. Even so, the majority of the folks in my congregation are well-to-do and most have at least a college education.

It is sometimes true, but there are a lot of factors (I for one, being a school teacher, will never, ever, ever be close to "wealthy"). Many Reformed people are disciplined with their money and resources. Reformed people think covenantally--with an eye to the future. This eventually includes stuff like money. Therefore, there is a reason to save for the future. This can lead to wealth (unless you are in a socialist or hyper-inflationist economy--then no one is wealthy! ).

I have little experience among Reformed churches...

Our first truly Calvinistic church was Edgewood Baptist in Anderson, IN...I think there was some wealth there...but also a lot of love. People invited us over and took time to meet us...haven't worshipped there in 6 years, and we still received cards from an older lady there for some time afterward.

Our second church was Community, OPC in Kalamazoo, MI. There likely was some wealth there because the pastor received a "livable" wage from under 30 members...but the wealth was the result of Dutch thrift, hard work, and years of saving. One of our deacons was a garbage man, and his family had much respect in that church. There was also hospitality expressed there.

Our current church has a LOT of what I'd consider wealthy people...but they are often thrifty and open their homes up to many in our church or are quick to invite people they've never met before...one couple tried to pick up a homeless man on Friday, offering to take him to dinner, and then a Bible study...the man liked the idea of dinner, but not Bible Study! Sad to say, but my wealthy brothers and sisters put this man to shame by pursuing new people (no matter economic position) and inviting people over...

None of these churches is located in a booming Metropolis...I wonder if some of this may be dependent on that? Perhaps wealthy Reformed folk in big cities tend to "buy into" worldly thinking more often and with that snobbery?

Do Reformed Churches "Snub" the poor, uneducated believers?

Of course they do. Why else do you think I'm a baptist? Perhaps it is "because good and necessary consequence is not something that uneducated people [like me] can really grasp."

Actually, I suspect that the issue of social class among Protestant denominations involves a number of factors, many of them part of the historical differentiations among denominations. The NY Times ran an interesting article a couple of years ago. Part of it said:

In 1929, the theologian H. Richard Niebuhr described born-again Christianity as the "religion of the disinherited." But over the last 40 years, evangelicals have pulled steadily closer in income and education to mainline Protestants in the historically affluent establishment denominations. In the process they have overturned the old social pecking order in which "Episcopalian," for example, was a code word for upper class, and "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" shorthand for lower . . . Meanwhile, evangelical Protestants are pulling closer to their mainline counterparts in class and education. As late as 1965, for example, a white mainline Protestant was two and a half times as likely to have a college degree as a white evangelical, according to an analysis by Prof. Corwin E. Smidt, a political scientist at Calvin College, an evangelical institution in Grand Rapids, Mich. But by 2000, a mainline Protestant was only 65 percent more likely to have the same degree. And since 1985, the percentage of incoming freshmen at highly selective private universities who said they were born-again also rose by half, to 11 or 12 percent each year from 7.3 percent, according to the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Nevertheless, the message of Calvinism IS not typically defended by popularizers and mega church pastors other than a rare R.C. Sproul. Mega churches such as Willowcreek, Saddleback, and Osteen's place are not exactly proclaiming the Canons of Dort or preaching through the Sundays in the Heidelberg Catechism.

Plus, the high value placed upon education among the Reformed is evident even here on the PB. Some of the laypeople here are AMAZING! Many of them know more theology and are better read than your average seminary graduate from any number of other denominations!

Will people "self select" churches that appeal to their preferences? Duh! That does not mean that Reformed churches snub anyone. It simply suggests that those wanting a more enthusiastic, emotional, and feelings-driven worship experience are not likely to choose the Reformed Church of Somewhere. They will more likely be found at the First Bapticostal Tabernacle of the Holy Spirit . . . where poor, stupid people like me are members.

[The last line was gratuitously tongue-in-cheek. However, leaving out the words after the elipsis marks, my point stands.]

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Do Reformed Churches "Snub" the poor, uneducated believers?

Of course they do. Why else do you think I'm a baptist? Perhaps it is "because good and necessary consequence is not something that uneducated people [like me] can really grasp."

Actually even educated people have a hard time with the concept. Look how many educated people erroneously think that GNC deductions from Scripture require Presbyterial govenment and infant baptism.

I've moved around different parts of the country and had the opportunity to attend an OPC and PCA church in the northeast and an OPC and ARPC church in the south.

I, too, have noticed a disproportionate number of highly educated folks attending these churches. As to why, I'd opine that the Reformed faith isn't involved in "easy believism" and the theology can be fairly demanding. the WCOF, for instance was actively being taught in all the churches I've attended.

I've never seen us "snub" the lesser educated folks, but we don't offer much quarter to Arminians.

Which is interesting to me considering the Shorter Catechism was written for the uneducated masses and Children.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Do Reformed Churches "Snub" the poor, uneducated believers?

Of course they do. Why else do you think I'm a baptist? Perhaps it is "because good and necessary consequence is not something that uneducated people [like me] can really grasp."

Actually even educated people have a hard time with the concept. Look how many educated people errroneously think that GNC deductions from Scripture requires Presbyterial govenment and infant baptism.

Now that made me...

Jbaldwin, this is something that I've noticed to. I'm in Detroit, which is as most of you know, a pretty poor city. We don't have ONE Reformed church in the city. The only Reformed churches are in the suburbs, totally outside of my economic class. So good question, I have been wanting to know this for some time.

*also* there is something about Reformed people being disciplined. I have noticed that since becoming Reformed about 2 years ago. I think that can be a valid explanation why the majority of Reformed people tend to be middle to higher class. But what can we do to reach the impoverished communities where Pentecostalism is running rampant? I really have a burden for my city. Thanks again Jb.

Andrew,

You seem to have put in words some of what I am thinking. I, too, am concerned about the improverished "masses" where pentecostalism is running rampant. Where I live, there seems to be a growing separation between the wealthy educated and poor uneducated populations, and I know of few reformed churches who are reaching out to this group of people.

That's why we shouldn't turn up our noses at Sproul or even Piper, who are able to "put the Reformed cookies on the lower shelves" so everyone can get to them. Even Tim Keller () has helped to plant a church in Harlem. I think it's PCA.

I was talking with some young revolutionaries from our church today, trying to interest them in a classical school program for the poor of our city - so they can at least be informed citizens. Didn't get very far.

Originally Posted by MMasztal

...I'd opine that the Reformed faith isn't involved in "easy believism" and the theology can be fairly demanding.

However, in God's providence, the gospel, when properly presented, is crystal clear...and the doctors and lawyers need it just as much as the plumbers and garbage collectors do.

On a related topic to wealthy and educated vs. less wealthy and educated: years ago, I once saw a booklet or pamphlet written William Sanford LaSor of Fuller Seminary about how to choose a seminary. In it, Sanford had a section cautioning would-be seminary students "not to pick a seminary that you're not smart enough for" - that some seminaries are allegedly more sophisticated in the curriculum or the way they teach than others.

In other words: if you're some hick fundy, you probably don't want to come to Fuller.

I don't think I've ever seen that before in a brochure of that nature.

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

I have been thinking about wealth and the reformed church, as it is now (compared to the days of the apostles and the days of the reformers). In my experience, there are a lot more wealthy (and well-educated) people in reformed churches than there are those of the lower, less-educated people. Is this a misconception? Is it something that is restricted to my part of the country? If, indeed, the reformed church has a higher percentage of wealthy, educated people than poor, uneducated people, why is that so?

Also, in my experience, folks who are well off in the reformed church tend to snub their noses at the lower, uneducated in the church. Keep in mind that my experience in the reformed church is restricted to one part of the country where financial status and education determines who you associate with.

When I look at the apostles, I see a mixed bag of folks. On the one hand, you have well-educated Paul, on the other hand, you have poor, uneducated Peter. Status and education made no difference.

Take this a step further. Does the reformed church (as a whole) welcome or shun the poorer, uneducated classes? If they shun them, what should we do about it?

This raises a number of very important questions which we in the Reformed world need to grapple with. My own denomination badly suffers from being inordinately middle-class and the whole climate (IMO) is off-putting to those from working-class backgrounds. Sadly, our only working-class congregation (which was in East Belfast) closed over a year ago (though there are efforts to revive it).

Originally Posted by bookslover

On a related topic to wealthy and educated vs. less wealthy and educated: years ago, I once saw a booklet or pamphlet written William Sanford LaSor of Fuller Seminary about how to choose a seminary. In it, Sanford had a section cautioning would-be seminary students "not to pick a seminary that you're not smart enough for" - that some seminaries are allegedly more sophisticated in the curriculum or the way they teach than others.

In other words: if you're some hick fundy, you probably don't want to come to Fuller.

I don't think I've ever seen that before in a brochure of that nature.

Sounds like the Bill LaSor I had at Fuller! He was equally elitist in class. You could earn an A from him, speak often in class, and two years later he wouldn't even recognize you as a former student. [BTW, after a quarter studying the "Messianic Idea in the Old Testament," we still were not sure if he actually thought any of it was actually messianic!]

IMHO (or maybe IMNSHO), places like Fuller practice the worst kind of elitism. They stand amazed in the presence of ideas of those who scoff at scripture and practice hard to cater to the sophisticated despisers of the Gospel. My "Reformed" profs were the ones who dissed Schaeffer, Carl Henry, Van Til, and the like. They laughed at the scholars at places like Trinity (TEDS), Gordon, and Westminster and adored the neo-orthodox (remember this was in the mid 70s) OT scholars and systematic theologians.

After 27 years of interviewing FTS grads for ordination (300 or so), they seem to know the most about theology's fads and cul de sacs and the least about the major tenets of orthodoxy. Few, if any, know what the ordo salutis is; most cannot explain the difference between propitiation and expiation; and almost none have done any reading on anything but the egalitarian view of male/female roles. But, they KNOW their Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Pagitt! A few months ago, I did my annual lecture to baptist students at Fuller about ordination. On the topic of theology, they all professed admiration for and varying levels of adherence to Brian McLaren.

[quote=DMcFadden;372343]

Originally Posted by bookslover

[...] Few, if any, know what the ordo salutis is; most cannot explain the difference between propitiation and expiation; and almost none have done any reading on anything but the egalitarian view of male/female roles. But, they KNOW their Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, and Pagitt! A few months ago, I did my annual lecture to baptist students at Fuller about ordination. On the topic of theology, they all professed admiration for and varying levels of adherence to Brian McLaren.

This really is cause for great sadness.

A few thoughts:

I read and found interesting Max Weber's book on calvinism and capitalism. It appears that protestantism promotes a certain industriousness (hard work, honesty and frugality). Education always increased for sure wherever the Protestant faith went.

Also, I do also notice that many reformed churches are representative of only a small slice of America as a whole, largely white. I even heard a "colored boy" joke in one calvinist church I attended and frequent quotes by Dabney and southern generals and against Lincoln. I am sure that these things have an effect against diversity. And ethnic minorities do seem to represent a large portion of the poor in the US.

I have posted several posts on the PB about issues of the poor and about 3/4th of the time, at some point, someone will mention Chilton's book that is written against Ron Sider, "Productive Christians in the age of guilt manipulators." What this means to me is that in threads about the poor, there are equal parts reaction as there are legitimate positive contributions to the discussion.

However, I am a sovereign grace baptist and most of the church members I am familiar with are not rich but are largely rural and lower middle class, and the most generous people I know.

So...I am not sure how to make many generalizations.

When we look the other way it is interesting to note the people we know otherwise to be very intellegent and accomplished check their intellect at the door and follow silly evangelicalism. I am sure we all know a few.

but the wealth was the result of Dutch thrift, hard work, and years of saving.

In the church I grew up in, it was 'old school' Dutch. There was some wealth, but like that of the 'wealthy barber' - saving pennies and denying one's material urges was the name of the game. The purses came open for Christian school and church needs, but were otherwise closed. I know families of 6 kids who were raised in tiny houses but whose fathers always had lots to spend at Christian school bazaars.

I also don't think there is such a leaning toward higher education. In my home church, high school and maybe technical college (in fairly rare cases) was the order of the day for my father's generation, and they were the ones who accumulated all the wealth. They were, for the most part:

1. poorly educated
2. self-employed
3. frugal

My grandfather was a dirt farmer (much plowing, little harvesting, little income) but was an elder of no little standing in his congregation. He raised five children in near-poverty (but what we would likely call 'severe' poverty today), four of whom have stood as elders or married men who have. One has fallen away from the faith.

Watching the older generation die off is, in many ways, watching the gutting of the church.

It is amazing how we can make a vice a virtue for one of our own. Thrifty is used when describing our own, cheap and uncaring is used for others.

You know, Jb, I imagine that someone has written on this somewhere. I've been searching on Google to see if anyone else has noticed this trend and my searches have been turning up blank. However, I found one article that may be able to give us a few hints on on this, though the article was about Reformed churches + minorities.

Minorities and the Reformed Churches

By John Frame, so should be a pretty good read. Reading it right now.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

It is amazing how we can make a vice a virtue for one of our own. Thrifty is used when describing our own, cheap and uncaring is used for others.

Interesting point.

It is always right to be good stewards of what God has given us, but when I talk about wealth and education, I am not saying that these things are wrong. I believe in being a good steward, and I believe in good education. What I am observing, perhaps, is that a common vice of the well-educated and wealthy (even in reformed circles) is to equate wealth and education with holiness, as if poverty and lack of education equals unholiness. I say this, because it is something I have struggled with, and I've been both wealthy and dirt poor.

While it IS true that if you follow Biblical principles you will be prosperous, does ir necessarily mean you will be a millionaire? Or does that mean you will be prosperous where God has put you? We were told to ask God for our daily bread. We are told that in this world we will have tribulation. In our walk with the Lord, I think we have our financial ups and downs.

Originally Posted by christianyouth

You know, Jb, I imagine that someone has written on this somewhere. I've been searching on Google to see if anyone else has noticed this trend and my searches have been turning up blank. However, I found one article that may be able to give us a few hints on on this, though the article was about Reformed churches + minorities.

Minorities and the Reformed Churches

By John Frame, so should be a pretty good read. Reading it right now.

Thanks, that is an interesting article and addresses at least one side of my what I have observed. I may make more comments later.

Do Reformed Churches "Snub" the poor, uneducated believers?

No, the reformed church I attend seems to accept me.

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

It is amazing how we can make a vice a virtue for one of our own. Thrifty is used when describing our own, cheap and uncaring is used for others.

Interesting point.

It is always right to be good stewards of what God has given us, but when I talk about wealth and education, I am not saying that these things are wrong. I believe in being a good steward, and I believe in good education. What I am observing, perhaps, is that a common vice of the well-educated and wealthy (even in reformed circles) is to equate wealth and education with holiness, as if poverty and lack of education equals unholiness. I say this, because it is something I have struggled with, and I've been both wealthy and dirt poor.

While it IS true that if you follow Biblical principles you will be prosperous, does ir necessarily mean you will be a millionaire? Or does that mean you will be prosperous where God has put you? We were told to ask God for our daily bread. We are told that in this world we will have tribulation. In our walk with the Lord, I think we have our financial ups and downs.

Ill give you a personal example JB. Our church hosts a soup kitchen for lack of a better term. I facilitate it and receive more support from secular organizations than our own congregation and surrounding reformed churches. When our congregagtion comes to eat at any of the dinners, they sit at their own table and dont talk to the deserved people that do come. All they are concerned with is "Have any of them joined the church?" I say, "That is not my concern." "My concern is to feed them and point them to Christ". Being part of our roles is the wrong attitude towards the 'poor'. Going out to the byways and highways inviting them to the wedding feast, is not having them join our church!!!! They do not understand this type of kingdom thinking. And it is a shame. They look at the kingdom through the churches leneses, instead of looking at the church through the kingdom's lenses. People that come are filthy messes. Drunks, drug addicts, unwashed physically. I was brought before the consistory telling me to get them to stop dirtying the new rug they put in 5 years ago. They thought this was good stewardship. So I solved the problem. I went in one night, ripped up the rug revealing linoleum floors. Now there is no problem. I go by the motto it is always easier to ask for forgiveness instead of permission!!!!!

Let me also state that I detest liberation theology. I find it heretical. But one cannot throw the perverbial baby out with the water either. Thrifty or frugal does not mean filling ones own coffers first for an inheritence or bequeathment to the church, then giving what is left over for those in need. JB< the problem is that people who leave money, still want control over it after they are food for worms rotting in the ground. Becasue of my insisting, we will no longer allow engraved plaques, or earmarked monies that people leave to the church when they die. SOme have not given becasue of this, and that is good becasue i do not want their money. I have no tolerance of dead gepetto's still holding the purse strings when they are gone. Neither do we allow it when they are living.

I've tried several times to post to this thread but each time my comments became too drawn out and rambling and I deleted them. Sooo.....here's another try.....

All churches have to be taken on a one by one basis - I don't think that a blanket statement as to whether or not a Reformed church is snobbish toward the poor and uneducated can be made.

However, I believe that the doctrinal differences between Reformed and, for example, charismatic churches result in discernable differences in the overall educational level in respective congregations. It's easy to attend a charismatic church - all you have to do is be willing to stand for long periods of time doing the happy-clappy routine, be open to various "spiritual" manifestations, and listen to sermons that may or may not be biblically sound and are rarely expository in nature. That's how it was in my former church - we weren't taught doctrine and those who tried to venture into the waters of deeper theological understanding were warned against becoming puffed up with knowledge.

The very structure of Reformed preaching/teaching with its emphasis upon expository teaching and creeds, confessions, and catechisms which cast further light on scriptural truths, attract people who have both an intellectual and a spiritual hunger. The weekly expositing of the Word of God serves to educate and enlighten even those without an intellectual bent.

As to whether a church is snobbish - as I said before, it depends on the church - our new church, a PCA - is warm and giving and welcomed us with literally open arms when we first began attending. I think the title "Presbyterian" connotes elitism to some people and our church was known in previous years as snobbish, something we are trying, with much prayer, to correct. In the end, of course, it is the Lord who will change our hearts and enable us to reach out in His love to those around us for their good and His glory.

No, we cathechise them.

I'm sure you'll all pardon me if I mention Redeemer PCA in Manhattan, and Tim Keller. The demographic groups Tim aimed at were those neglected (feared?) by many churches: young, educated, professionals (lawyers, financial workers, doctors, educators, businessmen & women), artists, intellectuals, students -- the present or future movers and shakers of the city and its culture. But there are many minorities, including the poor among them, who gladly attend and join.

One of Tim's focuses is on radical giving of one's money ("When walking with the Lord, money is always an issue," he says). It is one way of showing where our true security lies, our "functional salvation". So the generosity of the congregation (congregations now) has financed and staffed many "mercy ministries" in the city and elsewhere. The emphasis at Redeemer is equally on growing in the knowledge and grace of Christ and reaching out to the disadvantaged, marginalized, and poor with the Gospel and material aid.

The plant in Harlem is New Song Community Church, PCA. The plant in Astoria, Queens (just across the East River from Manhattan) is in a lower to middle class neighborhood, with outreach to Hispanics, Arabs, Greeks, etc -- whoever is in the neighborhood (the church, Astoria Community Church, PCA, worships in a synagogue rented on Sundays).

So the church plant I am involved in here in Limassol, Cyprus [International Evangelical Church (Reformed)], follows the Redeemer paradigm: we welcome the poor and marginalized as well as the wealthy. We had one fairly wealthy couple here, but they had to leave due to health concerns and better medical treatment elsewhere; the poor among our people -- foreign domestic workers -- are those who give the most in their offerings. Whatever our stations in life, we all of us are family, together wending our way through a hostile world to the city of God. We look after one another, according to our gifts and abilities.

We got a young African girl out of prison (incarcerated at 17 for coming into the country on bad travel papers -- released almost two years later), and are now helping her get established in the community. We fish for souls and draw in whomever the Savior gives us.

The evening service on Sundays is primarily an Arabic-speaking congregation (I speak through translators, and an Arabic-speaking pastor frequently comes), though English-speakers often attend and are welcome. It is heartening to these Arabs that I am a Jew and have a heart for them; it is heartening for me that they take me in as a brother -- which the Lord Jesus indeed makes us!

MERF (Middle East Reformed Fellowship) provides us with some of the best Reformed literature translated into Arabic, so as to educate our people (and MERF also provides us with Farsi (Persian) Reformed lit for the many Iranian Christians here). As MERF is supporting our premises, I use a good bit of the surplus offerings to buy Bibles, and good books so our "poor and uneducated" may grow in knowledge. A lot of our folks now have Spurgeon's Morning and Evening, Sproul's Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, and Peter Jeffery's Bitesize Theology. I'm thinking to get William Henry Green's Conflict and Triumph: The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded, and give it out because of its superb (and relatively simple) exegetical and devotional look at suffering. I want my people educated in the things of God, as well as knowing how to walk with Him in constant intimate communion.

So the stereotype of the Reformed "snubbing the poor and uneducated" is falling away in the face of those P & R churches who truly live the Gospel, which many are doing. Tim Keller and Redeemer have been a light to many in this regard.

I don't agree with him on every point, and have spoken to him concerning them; but I love and respect the man. My wife and I have been immeasurably enriched by his ministry. If we think such a man errs on things, then we should pray for him.

I'm back in Cyprus now. It was a good and productive visit to New York. I'm glad to be home with my wife!

Originally Posted by Sonoftheday

Do Reformed Churches "Snub" the poor, uneducated believers?

No, the reformed church I attend seems to accept me.

I was thinking the same thing. If anything, its not my poverty that they might look down their noses at me for, but rather my boneheadedness. That far eclipses anything else they might notice about me.

Originally Posted by Brad

Originally Posted by Sonoftheday

Do Reformed Churches "Snub" the poor, uneducated believers?

No, the reformed church I attend seems to accept me.

I was thinking the same thing. If anything, its not my poverty that they might look down their noses at me for, but rather my boneheadedness. That far eclipses anything else they might notice about me.

Brad it is not the 'inreach" that is problematic at times, it is the outreach that presents barriers wo WASPS. They will dig deep to redo the narthax for 100k, but ask them for a few bucks so we can do a service for the downtrodden in their row houses and the become a grinch.

It is amazing how we can make a vice a virtue for one of our own. Thrifty is used when describing our own, cheap and uncaring is used for others.

However, I can honestly say that almost all the old-school 'frugal' Reformed that I know have their priorities straight. That is, while they are frugal with what they spend on themselves, giving to the ministry comes first. I don't see how that is a bad thing...

I don't know if it's a "reformed" Church thing or not, it may be more a heart issue...I know many wealthy people at our church--some who snub those less fortunate, and some who don't.

My step-mother comes from an affluent family and she snubs those with less money and she doesn't go to a reformed church..she goes to a liberal church..with no minorities, but then we have Churches with a majority who attend them are Asian, Black, or whatever minority...and they have their own affluent groups within them..we have some minorities in our church, and many of them are highly educated and affluent as well, but I don't notice them snubbing those at our church who are less educated or affluent than themselves..like some of the others do..

So again, I don't think it's necessarily a Reformed issue, I think it may be more a heart issue..

Originally Posted by BJClark

So again, I don't think it's necessarily a Reformed issue, I think it may be more a heart issue..

I think you're spot on there - however, rightly or wrongly, "Presbyterian" and "Reformed" both have upper crust, elitist, snob images that somehow need to be eliminated.

Having traveled the world in the Navy for the last 20 years I've experienced both vibrant out reach from Reformed Presbyterian churches and "upper crust snobbishness". It depends on the congregation and the location often times.

Not to mention some folks are more out going than others to begin with and then there's the whole "birds of a feather" thing. People tend to congregate with people they feel comfortable around instead of going outside their "comfort zones".

Originally Posted by JBaldwin

Also, in my experience, folks who are well off in the reformed church tend to snub their noses at the lower, uneducated in the church.

Before I spend some time answering this can you PM me your annual income and transcripts from your school.

There is a problem, I think, with both class snobbery but I think some of it has to do with an inability to "be all things to all people." This is actually not restricted to Reformed people. I think the demographic that Lane describes below sort of nails it from a certain angle.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I've seen that usually smarter people tend to be Reformed. This is because good and necessary consequence is not something that uneducated people can really grasp. Fortunately for us, Reformed churches also preach the plain and simple gospel. I think in the North, Reformed church have a much larger spread of wealth and education than in the South. Even in my two churches, there is a wide variety among farmers as to wealth, social prestige, and education. This is, of course, no dig at the South (I am a born Southerner, and an emancipationist Confederate, if that makes any sense).

I think that the recent growth in Reformed theology owes a lot to Sproul and Renewing your Mind. At least 10-15 years ago it probably did but now it's getting its own traction.

I think the initial impression of Reformed theology is, by outsiders, is that it's for the smart people that care about deeper things. It has something to do with the divorce of the mind and the heart in American culture (especially in religion) but self-described Calvinists have perpetuated this myth because a good portion of them never really become Reformed but remain pre-destinarians that like to debate the 5 points of Calvinism. They never really "graduate". In my estimation, most of these folks are actually not all that intelligent or wise, which is an irony that they're perceived as "brainy".

The "cage stage", in my estimation, is really a reflection of immaturity where the person starts to believe those around him that view him as some sort of Biblical authority because he's picked up a few arguments and texts that demonstrate TULIP. I've seen this happen repeatedly here were folks show up that have had people fawn over their mastery of Scriptures and then they come to regale us with insight and either write the board off as heretics or are slowly brought to their senses that they have *a lot* to learn. I can speak with some authority hear because I'm still a fool in search of wisdom.

Anyhow, back to my initial point. I think it is the nature of the beast that there are always folks who lack an ability to think about the world outside themselves and how to relate to it. Paul speaks of being all things to all people. It's not that he compromised his beliefs but he was able to communicate truth to smart men (Greeks) and uneducated men (barbarians-he calls them that, not me).

Again, though, this is not endemic to Reformed people. Everybody has this problem. My consistent criticism of American "evangelism" is that it exports American culture as much (or more than) Christianity. I think I've told the story of a Vacation Bible School where it didn't occur to folks to cut out the pledge of allegiance to the American flag from the curriculum that was being offered to Japanese kids here. I'm sure their parents must have loved seeing their little toddlers and elementary age kids pledging their allegiance to America. Japanese people here have been asking "What does the Easter Bunny have to do with Jesus rising from the dead?' just like they asked about Santa Claus and the Incarnation.

It is a reminder to us all, then, that we need to become comfortable with being uncomfortable. If everyone in our Church is comfortable with each other because you all would pretty much be friends even if you didn't name Christ then you better be sure that that's not the "vibe" that's being put out. It's good to get out now and again and talk to people outside your social group and get to know how they think. Paul was in the marketplace and, as someone else noted, he made sure he could communicate a Truth that transcended the cultural lines that often make communication between "classes" seem impossible. It is to the Church's shame that worship is segregated on Sunday AM.