A Bias Against Sunday Segregation (by Sondra Shepley)
American churches are still segregated, and it is the way most of us—regardless of our race—would like to keep it. At least, so suggests the recent online CNN article titled, “Why Americans Prefer Their Segregated Sundays." Curtiss DeYoung, professor of Reconciliation Studies at Bethel University, is quoted in this article as saying that only about 5 percent of American churches are racially integrated and half of those churches are moving in the direction of becoming all-black or all-white.
In his book United by Faith, DeYoung and his co-authors Michael O. Emerson, George Yancey, and Karen Chai Kim, argue that when churches can be integrated they should. The reality of residential racial segregation presents a real and sometimes insurmountable hurdle to church integration. However, as inner-city gentrification becomes more of an established part of city life, there is a question about the church’s role in creating stable environments for integration, instead of merely transitional integrated bodies created by the market economy.
As Christians, we all agree that we should want racial integration in all facets of our lives, and, in particular, in our worshipping communities—right? Although the inexcusable sin of white racism still persists and is a major hindrance to church integration, John Blake insightfully reports what might be the most compelling example of why churches should remain segregated—the black church. Established as the result of white racism, the black church formed out of necessity. Historically referred to as the “Invisible Institution,” the black church flourished at the margins and gave its parishioners empowerment through leadership, dignity through shared cultural experiences, and hope through powerful and prophetic preaching. As Blake mentions, the black church still gives its attendees a “break” or a place of retreat from the wear and tear of present-day racism. Similar assets can be found in Asian, Latino, and Native American churches.
It is with this appreciation and recognition, however, that I reveal all of my biases. As a white Christian I have been abundantly and exceedingly blessed to have worshipped in two racially integrated church bodies. Words fail to express how these churches have shaped and transformed my understanding of God and my humble place in this world. For the people of color who have worshipped with me I know that it has sometimes come at a significant cost to them and invaluable benefit to me.
Ultimately, I agree with the authors of United by Faith because I believe that the biblical case for an integrated church is virtually airtight, and the witness it provides to a violent and bigoted world cannot be overstated. Still, the formula for the success of such churches remains persistently and frustratingly elusive.
It does leave me with one final thought. At the beginning of Blake’s article he recounts the fears expressed by black congregants whose church was experiencing an influx of white members. Their fear was that these new white members would take over, rendering its current members disempowered. I sympathize with this fear as it exposes what might be the greatest challenge to whites who want to lead on church integration – if you want to lead you are probably going to have to learn how to follow and serve. We progressive types may even have to learn the radical implications of terms we do not often use, like “submission." Yet this is the way of Christ modeled through his earthly incarnation.
Sondra Shepley is the speaking events manager for Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
While I've been part of several integrated churches, I fear they were very modern services where we sang chorus rather than traditional hymns or spirituals. So what I've seen of integrated churches is a different animal -- niether a black church that welcomes whites or a white church that assimilates blacks.
Something in me finds it sad to lose the traditions on either side. And I guess I'm asking what a truly integrated church would look like. Would it need a black pastor and a white pastor?
A lot of this comes down to preference too. If I want organ music, I probably won't settle on a church that only sings choruses. If I don't like the style of a church, be it formal or informal, I probably won't make that church my home. I may visit from time to time, but it wouldn't be my home.
Posted by: frankie | August 7, 2008 11:17 AM
I have some difficulty getting excited about this issue. Churches and the Christians who inhabit them are as "integrated" as they choose to be. It's only a matter of voluntary association, based mostly on liturgical or theological preferences. I can't think of any church I've ever been associated with that would have discouraged membership by anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity. The church I attend these days is wildly multi-ethnic and multi-racial. People belong to it because they prefer its liturgical tradition.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 11:32 AM
A truly integrated church is a great goal. When one begins to share a pew and fellowship with Christians from various races and ethnic backgrounds, we begin to lose some of the misconceptions that we have for each other. However, when we add the liturgical tradition to the menu, it may become more difficult (not impossible) to find a church home. A few years ago, I attended the funeral of an African American friend. It was going strong after two hours with attendees of both races exiting before the service was completed.
Posted by: sister marie | August 7, 2008 11:47 AM
frankie -- That's part of the challenge Sondra is laying out. I currently attend one of the churches she was referring to (though I have never met her), and while I wasn't there at the transition I understand that a lot of hard work had to go into changing that church from lily-white and racist (which it was) to what it has become. Last year a member of our pastoral staff was called to a church in Montana, and do you know one of the biggest things he said he misses? The presence of African-Americans in the congregation. See, once you taste that kind of fellowship you can never really go back to what you were before.
It seems to me that because the original church was multi-ethnic and -cultural we should seek a way to blend all that into one. Regarding "traditions," in my experience some may need to go -- my former church is to this day so hooked into its traditions it cannot do real ministry.
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 11:55 AM
Sondra, frankie and Gordon all make good points. All Christian churches should be open to racial integration. But are churches, today, really segregated because of racial issues? Some, but I'd argue not most.
I'd guess it's more based on culture, tradition and denominations. Black Christians have a particular worship style and culture tied to particular denominations, as do white Christians. One of the biggest issues in choosing churches is worship style and church size - liturgical vs. non liturgical, modern praise and worship vs. hymns, mega-church vs. small community church, etc. I think issues of culture and tradition play a larger role than race.
Posted by: Eric | August 7, 2008 11:55 AM
I'd guess it's more based on culture, tradition and denominations. Black Christians have a particular worship style and culture tied to particular denominations, as do white Christians.
However, the traditions grew out of race to a certain extent, especially when you consider that most African-American churches are pretty similar culturally to Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches in the South.
Anyway, allow me to make a personal observation about the necessity of worshipping together -- that way we can understand each other's backgrounds and viewpoints about life in general and get past the stereotypes we often maintain due to lack of contact. About a decade ago a white single mother wanted to marry me, a black man. I understood that for that to happen she and her sons needed to attend my church because they had not been exposed to that viewpoint, which of course I would bring into that marriage; however, there was resistance, as for the sake of convenience she didn't want to leave the all-white suburban church she attended. Anyway, one night we were at her home watching the news and a story came on about lack of minority contracting at the new baseball stadium; her then-teenage son looked at me and said, "Why can't they just hire the best people?" (I knew he got that attitude from their church. Needless to say, the relationship eventually failed because "we just don't want to change.")
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 12:31 PM
" . . . the traditions grew out of race to a certain extent . . ."
Probably true, at least in the Protestant church. Much less so in other traditions (Roman Catholic and Orthodox in particular). But it misses the point. I don't think many these days are racially motivated to abide by any particular tradition. I think they adhere to whatever tradition they grew up with because it is more comfortable to do so. A few people like myself migrate to other churches when we find the worship "style" or theological trend in their current church disturbing. But then, the motivation is a search for a more authentic tradition, and that has nothing to do with race.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 12:39 PM
I think they adhere to whatever tradition they grew up with because it is more comfortable to do so. A few people like myself migrate to other churches when we find the worship "style" or theological trend in their current church disturbing.
I disagree, as the evangelical church in this country doesn't today maintain any consistent "tradition." Contemporary worship has been de rigueur in much of evangelicalism for 20 years or so, and that is an offshoot of camp meetings the young attended back in the 1960s -- plus, it sells better on TV! (Raising both hands while holding a hymnal doesn't look too good.) The real problem, as I see it, is that we've placed God in a box and fear leaving our comfort zones.
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 12:57 PM
"The real problem, as I see it, is that we've placed God in a box . . ."
Not at all sure what you mean by that.
From an outside perspective, Protestant "innovation" doesn't look all that inconsistent. Particular features of worship change to keep up with the times, but it's still the same feel-good tradition. "Contemporary worship" just continues the Protestant evangelical tradition of emotionalism and emphasis on personal experience in worship that was prevalent in the 18th - 20th centuries. People look for novel ways to express this ethic, but it's really just more of the same, IMO.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 1:08 PM
A couple of questions come to mind, as I read this thread.
Isn't it actually a form of racism for a church to actively go out and seek to attract people, specifically because of the color of their skin? It seems to me it is a form of racism, since it ipso facto acknowledges that the church "needs" a mix of colors in order to somehow "be" the church
I think a church should be open. . . period. But, the fact seems to be, when we are 'open,' our tendency is to segregate ourselves according to something or other. Either we are segregated as black, or hispanic, or white, or 'progresive,' or 'fundamental' -- all are forms of segregation, and I must ask the second question - - what is wrong with that?
Posted by: joekc | August 7, 2008 2:28 PM
Joekc -
Not a bad point. If people voluntarily choose to worship with people they see as like them in some sense, that's just voluntary association. If they forbid people of particular skin color or ethnicity from membership, that's racism - but if their voluntary association based on doctrine or liturgical practice happens to break down on racial or ethnic lines, it's not.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 2:37 PM
I used to think that racially integrated churches were the way to go. I still think racial prejudice is wrong (I am very unprejudiced being a white person who adopted a child of another race and having been in a black sorority in college). My feeling now (acquired from spending time with minorities), is that people need to love each other and be together, but we lose cultural traditions when we integrate. Many white people may not enjoy the singing or the preaching in some predominantly black churches and vice versa. Black people often didn't like the formality of the white church. I now attend a church of my daughter's race so she can worship with people who are like her and pass on her culture. I think this is so important and I now think it is fine for us to be segregated on Sundays just because I think that we need to maintain cultural identities and we need places we can go where people are like us. I probably wouldn't pledge a black sorority today (or a white one for that matter). I wish I had not intruded on someone elses culture. Speaking with both black and white sororities, both thought theirs were better and neither wanted to be like the other. and I think that is just fine. I think probably the most comfortable interracial churches have been those passed down for centuries like the Episcopal, and Roman Catholic. Because their traditions come from the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic not from black or white or hispanic. Only the language varies. So this allows people to be together without loss of culture. (although I agree in maintaining cultural language churches as well). I have such a heart for preservation of culture because it is so closely tied to identity. I think churches ought to be linked together and we can have city wide and state wide missions and activities but the priceless gift of worshiping like your mom and grandmom etc is so priceless. Integrating everything will lose everything.
Posted by: MA | August 7, 2008 2:55 PM
Rick,
I agree that, to a certain extent, the church traditions in which some people find themselves grew out of race. But to a certain extent they didn't. And even when they have, is it really worth trying to get people to join a church in which they don't like the service/preaching/worship/prayer styles just for the sake of mixing races? I don't care for two-hour sermons, snake handling, projection screens, or prosperity gospel preaching. I'm not going to stick with a church that has those things just for the sake of being with people of other races.
Also, when you say that "the evangelical church in this country doesn't today maintain any consistent 'tradition'," keep in mind that there are many churches that consider themselves evangelical but are also liturgical churches. There is tremendous tradition at these places. For example, I attend an evangelical Episcopal church where we sing from hymnals and if you know the words by heart you can raise your hands and clap along (the more upbeat songs, that is). It's a good mix. There's more to evangelicalism than just a local non-denom Bible church.
Posted by: Eric | August 7, 2008 3:02 PM
Isn't it actually a form of racism for a church to actively go out and seek to attract people, specifically because of the color of their skin? It seems to me it is a form of racism, since it ipso facto acknowledges that the church "needs" a mix of colors in order to somehow "be" the church.
It's not -- just look at the early church, which was similarly constituted (and persecuted from every side for that reason). One reason they were called Christians was because in essence they were creating a whole new tribe.
If people voluntarily choose to worship with people they see as like them in some sense, that's just voluntary association. If they forbid people of particular skin color or ethnicity from membership, that's racism - but if their voluntary association based on doctrine or liturgical practice happens to break down on racial or ethnic lines, it's not.
I don't buy that, because when you do so you always end up speaking disparaging and blissfully ignorant words about the other without regard to whether they are fellow believers -- that was the point I made about that kid whose mother I used to date. And besides, in some cases it actually does lead to political segregation -- the campus ministry I was involved with in college actually created a separate fellowship for black students because of those alleged "cultural differences," which I found chafing because at that point I'd worshipped with whites for about a decade and related to them better anyway.
... keep in mind that there are many churches that consider themselves evangelical but are also liturgical churches. There is tremendous tradition at these places.
The one I attend and Sondra used to is one of them; it's existed in that corner in my city since the early 20th Century and was actually organized in 1898. But at what point do you sacrifice heritage and traditions for the sake of ministry? We found we couldn't be obedient to God and remain tied to the status quo, especially when it came to reaching "lost" people. In our case, we diversified not for the sake of being "politically correct" but to survive -- and attendance septupled in the process. And, as part of a staunchly conservative and blatantly evangelical denomination, we did so without abandoning any doctrine.
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 3:34 PM
" . . . you always end up speaking disparaging and blissfully ignorant words about the other without regard to whether they are fellow believers . . ."
Well, I don't share your pessimism, and that certainly hasn't been my experience. I do think we could do a lot more to foster unity in the Church.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 3:38 PM
If we want to see authentically integrated congregations, we must start integrating our lives. As we work to reverse gentrification and power inequities, as we break bread together outside of a formalized service, as we open our lives to one another in hospitality, then true multi-ethnic congregations of people serving and worshiping together will emerge. If we simply hang a sign on the door that say's we're a multi-ethnic church, we may end up with nothing more than a diversity of pew warmers who come in, sing some songs together, listen to a message, and go on about their lives still living and moving and having their being within their monocultural sphere. If the Church is to speak to the issue of racism and segregation, it must do it beyond the bounds of the Sunday morning sing-and-sermon in order to have anything significant to say to a watching world.
Posted by: Kimberly | August 7, 2008 3:54 PM
Kimberly -
I don't ascribe to the political ideas in your post, but I agree generally with its tenor. You're right that we could do a lot more to deal with racial issues outside the worship service.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 3:59 PM
Rick -
I can't remember a time when anyone in any of the churches I have been associated with as an adult openly disparaged black people (or people of any other stripe). Perhaps they happened to know how I feel about such things and never voiced their racism in my presence. There are of course racists in congregations black and white, and I suppose they do engage their racism from time to time within the walls of the church. I've just never seen it done, at least not as an adult. Not often as a child in the church of my upbringing, either. It always astonishes me when it happens.
I suppose you w0ould take me for white - I have the right skin color. But I am not comfortable thinking of myself as white.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 4:21 PM
We found we couldn't be obedient to God and remain tied to the status quo, especially when it came to reaching "lost" people. In our case, we diversified not for the sake of being "politically correct" but to survive --
I think that’s the point here. Segregated traditions are in some respect based on segregation. The most effective evangelism is inviting one’s friends and acquaintances to a relationship with God. If you have friends and co-workers of only one race, you live in a segregated society for sure.
I moved to a school district that is 80 percent black, so that my (white) children could go to integrated schools. Their elementary schools were about 50-50, and by the time they all reached high school, most relationships just weren’t based on race. It’s the only black-majority high school in the state with 15 Advanced Placement courses. The teachers teach and the students learn.
Our church, however, although it is in the same community, is about 90 percent white, a result of the voluntary association we’ve been discussing. We had a music director who loved African-American music, so in choir I learned a good amount of “black church” music – gospel and spirituals.
In seminary, which has been striving for diversity, I finally got comfortable with the audience participation associated with African-American preaching style. (“Can I hear an ‘amen’!) and prayer response (“Yes, Lord.”)
After I graduated, I was invited to start an alternative Sunday evening service at a predominantly black Presbyterian church (PCUSA). In the morning service I’m in a decided minority. In the evening, we never know who will show up, from new “gentrification” residents to street people to supportive folks from the morning service.
We sing all kinds of music – gospel songs, camp meeting songs, contemporary praise songs. We’re starting new traditions, including informal discussion from the pews of how the day’s (or night’s) scripture speaks to us, occasional U2charist communion services using recorded U2 music, and a fellowship time afterward that includes making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for the street people to distrubite when they leave.
If you’ve never worshipped regularly with someone from another tradition, you’re missing a rich mixture of ways to deepen your relationship with God.
(I've started a blog: http://altworship.wordpress.com)
Posted by: Virginia Gilbert | August 7, 2008 4:32 PM
I can't remember a time when anyone in any of the churches I have been associated with as an adult openly disparaged black people (or people of any other stripe).
Maybe you personally never heard it. But referring back to the situation with my former girlfriend, one year we had gone to a formal ball promoting racial reconciliation in the church. One of the suggested programs involved groups of women from black and white churches meeting together informally -- and it turned out that she couldn't find one other woman from her church willing to get involved (which didn't surprise me).
Anyway, that's the atmosphere in which many white conservative evangelical churches exist -- all I need to focus on is me and mine and never mind the poor people out there who haven't worked as hard as I do to get what I have. I would consider that an affront to God, Who gave those things to bless others and not simply to hoard as though they're entitled to them.
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 4:53 PM
" . . . that's the atmosphere in which many white conservative evangelical churches exist -- all I need to focus on is me and mine and never mind the poor people out there who haven't worked as hard as I do to get what I have . . ."
Not my experience, but perhaps you've seen more white conservative evangelical churches than I have. Otherwise, I generally agree with your perspective on why we have wealth.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 5:02 PM
Rick,
In your last response to me you seem to be making the assumption that every church must choose between liturgical tradition and successful ministry just because your church felt it had to do so. Our church's ministry is healthy; we're not going to change the worship style/liturgy/hymn selection/etc. simply to attract people of different races. There are plenty of churches in the area that cater to all sorts of people who like other styles.
My overall point is that people are attracted to different churches because of differences in doctrine, worship style, songs, sermon, etc. You're never going to be able to please everybody. Sometimes these differences align with racial differences. But very few people choose churches based on what the race of the people in the pews is.
Posted by: Eric | August 7, 2008 5:02 PM
I strongly agree that it really makes a difference how you think about race when a significant number of your fellow pew-sitters are of a different race than you. I grew up in a church in the 70's in which I think the majority of parishioners would have liked to see more minorities. There was one unmarried black man in the church--the rest were all white. Unfortunately, by default he became sort of the go-to person about racial sensitivity. He was always the one my parents referred to when trying to teach us kids not to be prejudiced against people of other races ("Look at Mr. ___, for example: he's a nice black man!"). He became the "token black," not because of anything he had done or anything the congregation decided, but because the church was not diverse.
I agree that there are lots of things that keep churches segregated besides overt racism: liturgy, location, theological tradition, preaching style, etc. But white churches can take steps to make their churches more diverse--for example, doing work in the inner city, moving (God forbid!) into the inner city, establishing partnerships with black churches, etc. Yes, for churches of conscience, diversity should be a goal and every all-white church should have something like a race relations committee to keep its congregation from becoming too comfortable.
Posted by: I and I | August 7, 2008 5:28 PM
Otherwise, I generally agree with your perspective on why we have wealth.
Keep in mind that I was talking about arrogance and "entitlement" on their part.
Our church's ministry is healthy; we're not going to change the worship style/liturgy/hymn selection/etc. simply to attract people of different races. There are plenty of churches in the area that cater to all sorts of people who like other styles.
With all due respect, you just contradicted yourself. You're saying that, in effect, we don't want to be bothered with the issue because they can go elsewhere, and that certainly does not reflect a healthy attitude -- in fact, in practice it can be segregationist. That's a short step from what I experienced in college, that "you belong in that other fellowship only because of your ethniciy/color."
Here's another item to consider: In addition to growing up in a liturgical tradition, I'm also a jazz musician. Should I leave my preferred musical style outside the church doors because it doesn't fit with the prevailing church culture?
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 5:54 PM
If I could find a Charismatic fusion of Orthodox, Catholic, gospel and liturgical forms I would be in heaven. at this point in time there is no church like that in America.
There is no excuse to be segregated if you live in a city. The command to reconcile is a universal one. It's not negotiable and complacency and comfort and things we should be willing to sacrifice when attending a church. Currently I am going to an evangelical church (even though I am not one) and I am pursuing reconciliation in most of my relationships. I think the problem is that people really want to remain comfortable and until we as a church deal with that nothing will really change.
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 7, 2008 6:13 PM
If I may clarify -- your local church should look like your neighborhood -- and not just your side of the tracks. But if the race is about the same for a 25 mile radius, it's a bit silly to feel guilty about not being a colorful group. The same is true with age and financial status. It's just as horrifying if all the lower-middle class folks attend one church and all the upper middle attend another. Unfortunately, racism isn't the only sin in the church.
I personally prefer International style churches, but I'm a pretty global person. We sing British hymns (which are a little slow and end on odd notes) and choruses. But I really enjoy the cultural mix and find it fresher than all the traditions I grew up with.
Posted by: frankie | August 7, 2008 6:45 PM
Rick -
"Here's another item to consider: In addition to growing up in a liturgical tradition, I'm also a jazz musician. Should I leave my preferred musical style outside the church doors because it doesn't fit with the prevailing church culture?"
In my view, yes.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 7:21 PM
Gordon -- I would probably then not join your church. I carried a number of background worship CD's in my car (I've recently misplaced them) for the expressed purpose of ministering on woodwind instruments during services whenever the opportunity came, and I play only hymns with strong theological content. So, effectively, my music ministry would be invalid.
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 7:46 PM
Rick -
I understand your point, but I am Orthodox.
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 7:49 PM
This is an interesting discussion, although, it sounds political. Why is there an assumption that most of us want a segregated churches? Do I have to be a racial category 24/7? Segregation in the church restrictive, prohibitive, racial, and historical. I hope there aren't any "segregated" churches left in the U.S.
Why can't I just be a member of the AME Church. Does it have a predominately Black membership. Yes. But more importantly, it is the church I was raised in, as was my Mother, and her parents. There is a consistency in the worship service that is comforting. It is the church that nurtured me as a child.
The AME Church was actually founded (dedicated) in the 1794 in Philadelphia, PA with free and enslaved members. The AME Church played a critical role in fighting slavery, Jim Crow, and racial injustice in the U.S. It has built educational institutions and has churches on 5 continents. It is diverse and has no history of restricting membership or advocating any exclusive membership. It celebrates its Methodism and its Wesleylan roots. Why would the fact that we are a predominately black congregation be problematic?
I visit different churches and invite folks to visit mine. We should feel free to attend any Christian church service, anywhere, and feel like welcomed like a member of an extended family. There are so many different faiths and interfaith options in this country and that is a good thing. Why should church racial makeup be a Christian goal?
BTW, If you want to do a historical study on integration/multi-cultural churches, the Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples was founded in 1944 as the nation's first interracial, interfaith congregation. Dr. Howard Thurman and Dr. Alfred Fisk were the co-founders.
Posted by: SJ Berry | August 7, 2008 9:18 PM
Why would the fact that we are a predominately black congregation be problematic?
One answer: Trinity UCC in Chicago.
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 9:42 PM
Rick:
There are published jazz settings of our (Lutheran) liturgies available, so your music would be welcome in at least some congregations.
Segregated Sunday mornings in the US are known worldwide. My wife and I were teaching at a Christian school in El Salvador two years ago. During history lessons, the fifth graders were asking my wife some very thoughtful questions about the history of slavery and the US Civil War. (It turned out they had been reading Uncle Tom's Cabin). Among the questions she was asked was, "Why do black and white Christians in the United States worship separately?" I don't think we gave them a very satisfactory answer.
But that's part of the American church's witness to the world.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | August 7, 2008 9:56 PM
I've enjoyed reading the comments of the participants. I'm interested in reading about this issue because I'm wanting to begin to work within my small neighborhood church to be more welcoming and "attractive" to the wide varieties of people who live, work, and attend schools there. Believe me, THAT word: EVANGELIZATION is JUST NEVER USED in the Catholic Church tradition; so I rarely use it with my fellow Catholics when describing what I think the various Christian demoninations, including Catholics, have always done.
One idea, that came to mind is, that to be a "participant" in a church congregation can look different than being a "member" or "parishioner" or "worshipper" or "volunteer". I have been a participant in many different roles in numerous religious organizations and churches and temples over my 50 years. I've been a guest, a student, a performer, an observer, a member, a former member, a relative of a member.
We shouldn't be about "rounding up" people so that the congregation should "look" a certain way. An AUTHENTIC religious community should be ever aware of her brothers and sisters who live
with her and most importantly be of service to them. A church of many members making up one body does not mean that these members necessarily need to be there in bodily form (excuse the pun).
But if we have what is attractive to another--great! If we don't, well, we can work to try to be hospitible, adaptable, and look at how we can be more welcoming.
Well, just a few random thoughts. I'd like to hear from anyone. I'll look forward to a conversation!
Thanks, Teresa
Posted by: Teresa L Minneapolis | August 7, 2008 10:11 PM
Why would the fact that we are a predominately black congregation be problematic? One answer: Trinity UCC in Chicago. Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 9:42 PM
Rick, UCC is another historical church and is predominately white. Trinity UCC was an effort by a predominately white church to set up a congregation in a predominately black neighborhood. So, explain the point you making? Have you ever been to Trinity UCC? Do you think one black congregation is the same as every other? Are you suggesting all black congregations are problematic?
Posted by: SJ Berry | August 7, 2008 10:45 PM
Why do black and white Christians in the United States worship separately?" I don't think we gave them a very satisfactory answer.
Don, what was your answer?
Posted by: SJ Berry | August 7, 2008 10:51 PM
Trinity UCC was an effort by a predominately white church to set up a congregation in a predominately black neighborhood. So, explain the point you making?
When you maintain a theology specific to one ethnic group, even though the tenets may be universal, you run into problems with being misunderstood, thus sabotaging the Christian unity we all say we want. That's why it ran into problems earlier this year. My white, Republican pastor has said some of the same things in the pulpit that Jeremiah Wright did for the same reasons and has the same relative notoriety here but has received precious little controversy.
Posted by: Rick | August 7, 2008 11:13 PM
Teresa, I like your attitude.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea of making our churches more "attractive". That way lies compromise with the world. And in any case I am inclined to think it is the Gospel that should be attractive. Indeed it is to me. It's easy to get wrapped-up in "church movements" and forget that our efforts and wisdom probably count for little when it comes to attracting people to one church or to the Church. I actually have some difficulty with the idea that people attend churches because they like the liturgy or the worship style or whatever. I realize that it's inevitable that this will happen, and that's what causes churches to be segregated along race or class or ethnic lines. But those are the very worst reasons for attending church.
Perhaps it's a matter of being attractive people?
Posted by: Gordon | August 7, 2008 11:41 PM
Rick, the question is whether a predominately black church is problematic. I'
Posted by: SJ Berry | August 8, 2008 12:00 AM
Don, what was your answer? Posted by: SJ Berry
I don't really remember. The question took us by surprise; it was not something we had anticipated trying to answer. I think my wife said something about cultural differences and worship styles, which is why I said we didn't answer it very well.
D
Posted by: Don | August 8, 2008 7:53 AM
Gordon -- In my view, the most important thing is not cultural relevance but in making a difference. In this racist country I think the church ought to operate from different parameters, getting the world's attention because we are different. That's why I have a hard time with racially-segregated churches today, especially since I now know it's not God's desire.
Rick, the question is whether a predominately black church is problematic.
I think it might be, which is why, despite history, I won't attend one (and in fact have not done so in nearly 40 years).
Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 8:44 AM
Speculation: Maybe it will require a round of authentic persecution of Christians in America before we will learn to focus on the great things we have in common and to ignore the minor differences that currently keep us apart.
D
Posted by: Don | August 8, 2008 8:53 AM
Wasn't it MLKing Jr who expressed frustration that the church was the tail-light of social transformation, rather than the headlight?
It seems not much has changed. Far from church being a slice of "the kingdom of heaven" on earth, its social patterning is sadly lagging behind contemporary society.
I attended a multicultural church in the tropical north of Australia for four years, and loved the diversity there. But I noticed that when the church held a quarterly communion service, it was invariably older white males who were selected to preside. It seems some perceptions die hard.
I think the black/white duality expressed in most of this discussion is an oversimplification of the issue, even for the US (if I can presume to say this, having never been there). What about Hispanic churches, Chinese churches, Native American churches? Do these deserve a place in the discussion?
The issues are a bit different when you start to consider congregations focusing on more recent migrant groups. Language becomes an issue, for one thing, particularly for the older people, for whom English is very much a second language, or barely understood at all.
I think the ethnic church debate will rage until we all stop looking at church as a place where our needs are met, and start seeing church as a "city on a hill", a beacon of hope to the surrounding community.
We should be asking ourselves: "how can my congregation reach its community? What human resources does my congregation contain that can be directed at the issues the community is facing?"
In my current church, we are a predominantly white, tertiary-educated upper-middle class congregation, living in a semi-rural and socioecomically disadvantaged area. The few working class members we have sometimes make an uneasy fit with the rest of the church. But are these not the very people who are in the best position to connect with our local community?
Posted by: Kent | August 8, 2008 9:01 AM
Rick,
That’s not what I’m saying at all. You’re again making an assumption about what a healthy church should look like – that a healthy church is defined by its racial diversity. That’s not my definition of a healthy church. A healthy church is one in which it’s parishioners are doing the Lord’s work – worshipping the Lord with all their heart, soul and mind, loving their neighbors, feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc. Racial diversity in the pews is far down the list of what a healthy church should be aspiring too. It’s hard enough getting the other stuff right. Maybe you see this differently as an African American. Racial healing may be high up on your priority list. But the average Asian/white/Hispanic/Indian/African person (with great trepidation I’ll make a bet that even the average African American doesn’t place it too high on their list of priorities) places a much higher priority on helping fix poverty, homelessness, depression, illness, etc than on healing racial wounds. Maybe they’ve got their priorities messed up, but that’s the way it is. It’s just not as big an issue as it is for you.
People come to the church I attend because it’s at least aspiring to be healthy in the way I describe above. But they also come because it has a specific tradition – Anglican, liturgical, evangelical. There are plenty of other spiritually healthy churches in our area. But people come to ours over the others for what makes it different. They don’t want to sit in a mega-church auditorium and sings vapid praise songs from a projector screen while a rock band performs just so they can be hip and possibly attract people who don’t look like them.
Our church also has a some-what aggressive Hispanic outreach ministry. Our Hispanic pastor sometimes preaches on Sunday and sometimes we have a Hispanic praise band play during the service. But it’s done in such a way that it strengthens, not degrades or changes, the traditional worship and liturgy of the service. But again, if Hispanics don’t care for the liturgy, they can attend the mega-church down the street and get contemporary.
As for jazz, we occasionally have jazz played during worship at our church. It fits in fine. But if a church can’t make it, or any other style of music, work with their format, there’s nothing wrong with it being excluded. Again, you can’t please everybody. We don’t have hard rock bands perform at our service because it wouldn’t fit in with the rest of the service. No one’s lamenting that we don’t have enough head-bangers in the pews. They can go to the mega-church down the street and get their hard rock. If every church was exactly the same in order to attract everyone it possibly could the world would be an incredibly boring place.
Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2008 9:55 AM
Maybe it will require a round of authentic persecution of Christians in America before we will learn to focus on the great things we have in common and to ignore the minor differences that currently keep us apart.
Chinese Christians actually pray for that.
I think the black/white duality expressed in most of this discussion is an oversimplification of the issue, even for the US (if I can presume to say this, having never been there). What about Hispanic churches, Chinese churches, Native American churches? Do these deserve a place in the discussion?
I don't think it is, because blacks and whites in this country speak the same language and thus maintain a number of cultural similarities; what cultural differences there are came because of racism. On the other hand, there is a real language barrier with Hispanics, Natives and Asians. (I sometimes wonder what language we will speak in heaven -- but that's the subject for another thread ... )
I think the ethnic church debate will rage until we all stop looking at church as a place where our needs are met, and start seeing church as a "city on a hill", a beacon of hope to the surrounding community.
Couldn't have said it better. The church exists to be a blessing to the world by making the reign of Christ a visible reality.
Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 10:08 AM
Don,
You make a good point. Many of the inter-denominational and political debates going on are luxuries of the religious freedom we enjoy.
Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2008 10:21 AM
You’re again making an assumption about what a healthy church should look like – that a healthy church is defined by its racial diversity.
Well, here's the issue I see: Who makes the decisions, and according to what? Is it a church where you have to "fit in" according to the prevailing culture? Do you have to act, look or dress a certain way to remain here? Having been in a number of churches over the years, even Episcopal (in fact, one of the local Episcopal churches came in "second" when it came to where I decided to put down roots about a decade ago), I personally am comfortable with almost any tradition, but does your "tradition" keep folks from hearing the Gospel? That's my point.
Racial healing may be high up on your priority list. But the average Asian/white/Hispanic/Indian/African person (with great trepidation I’ll make a bet that even the average African American doesn’t place it too high on their list of priorities) places a much higher priority on helping fix poverty, homelessness, depression, illness, etc than on healing racial wounds.
It is precisely because I've "been around" that racial healing is high on my priority list, and a surprising number of African-Americans feel the same way. In fact, a large number of my church's black members are over 60, which tells me that deep down they always believed in interracial worship but had a hard time finding a place that would welcome them as they were -- as a rule they do not come from the immediate neighborhood and, of course, were long-time members of other churches.
Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 10:30 AM
"Maybe it will require a round of authentic persecution of Christians in America before we will learn to focus on the great things we have in common and to ignore the minor differences that currently keep us apart."
"Chinese Christians actually pray for that."
I would hope that there are not many Chinese Christians praying for an authentic round of persecution in America, but I know that's not what you meant! :)
On a serious note, I'm glad you brought up Chinese Christians. This issue is a big part of my personal life, as my wife is a Chinese Christian. Here is a testament to the power of the church to break down barriers: in every city we've lived in (and I suspect most cities in America), the secular Chinese cultural associations in America tend to be segregated between mainland Chinese and Taiwanese Chinese (with Singaporean/Hong Kong/ Malaysian going where they may). They have separate Chinese New Years' parties and so forth. This is due partly to the different economic backgrounds between the two groups (Taiwanese-Americans tend to come from old money or at least be wealthier when they come to our shores than mainland Chinese), and also diffferences in opinion about communism and whether Taiwan or the mainland constitute the "true" China.
Well, guess what? The Chinese churches do not have such distinctions. In both of the medium-sized cities my family has lived in, there has been only one Chinese church that has members from both places AND Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. The idea of unity in the body of Christ is taken very seriously, and deep friendships are formed across those political and economic lines.
The Chinese church is a living example of how powerful the church can be in transcending social constructs. I think the rest of us can learn something from it with regard to racial integration.
Posted by: I and I | August 8, 2008 10:54 AM
Kent: "we are a predominantly white, tertiary-educated upper-middle class congregation,"
Kent, I've never run across the phrase "tertiary-educated." Can you explain what it means?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: carl copas | August 8, 2008 11:04 AM
I would hope that there are not many Chinese Christians praying for an authentic round of persecution in America, but I know that's not what you meant!
In fact, they do pray that we American Christians undergo persecution (I'm talking specifically about believers who live presently in mainland China). See, they believe that persecution, which almost all of them have experienced, strengthens their faith in Christ and their resolve to live for and like Him, which they want for us.
Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 11:08 AM
carl -- You're involved in tertiary education; it's the next step up from "secondary."
Posted by: Rick | August 8, 2008 11:13 AM
Rick: "carl -- You're involved in tertiary education; it's the next step up from "secondary."
Thanks Rick. Guess I should be embarrassed but had never heard that one before. Your explanation makes sense.
BTW, keep fighting the good fight.
Posted by: carl copas | August 8, 2008 11:33 AM
Excellent article. I say that as an African-American woman attending a overwhelmingly White congregation.
It is a difficult issue to talk about, but we Christians must talk about it.
And if racism is infecting the Body of Christ, how can expect society to be any different?
Posted by: Ninure | August 8, 2008 11:45 AM
to me, this is as simple and complex as we have substituted style for substance, conveniently for some to cover up racial animus (which infects all races) & more subtly for most (but equally as toxic) due to laziness of thought or will. & it has permeated the responses here as well - we worship where we like the style the best - that is the (acceptable?) answer to why churches are so segregated. in the process we have also limited the definition of worship to the singing of hymns and the preaching from the pulpit.
worship is all our acts of reverence to God, including and especially what we do to honor what we perceive as God's will. racial reconciliation within and without the faith, hopefully we would all perceive, is above enjoying the type of music at the service when it comes to "worship." when we broaden our definition of worship, overcoming differences in musical & liturgical style become much easier. it also asks us to rethink probably the main reason people choose one church over the other, but i digress.
this is not to say that "different strokes for different folks," should not hold true w/in the faith to a degree. there are certainly differences among us that make delineations pragmatic, but especially at this time in history race (& "culture") should not be one of them.
so, is "do no harm" enough? put another way, is "we don't discriminate & we welcome everyone" enough of an effort on behalf of a church, black & white folks, to satisfy our call to break down walls? this is not pollyanna "churches should exactly reflect the race makeup of the community," but is a conversation to help move on from where we are to some place better on race w/in the church.
ps - any brother will campbell fans out there?
Posted by: nad2 | August 8, 2008 12:59 PM
As a white guy always surrounded my other white people I long for diversity and want to be a leader on integration. So, I'm willing to submit for the greater cause. It is crazy to think that even us, the Church are bigots at times. God help us.
www.kevinsthirdplace.blogspot.com
www.tomorrowschurch.blogspot.com
Posted by: Kevin Davis | August 8, 2008 2:27 PM
Eric,
A healthy church is a place where all people feel free to worship in their own tongue or have you ignored Revelation... Jesus says that he wants his church to be a house of prayer for all the nations. Do your values reflect that truth? If not why?
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 8, 2008 3:04 PM
"Aren't we better served if we just see each other as sons and daughters of the Living God?"
Yes, that is the goal.
"Do we need to...talk about the demographics of our individual congregations?"
In many cases, yes, as a means to the above goal.
Posted by: I and I | August 8, 2008 5:08 PM
"In fact, they do pray that we American Christians undergo persecution (I'm talking specifically about believers who live presently in mainland China)."
Rick, I'm inclined to believe you, but I have never heard anything about this and find it disturbing for a number of reasons (not least the theological implications of belief in a God who persecutes others upon request). I would also like to discuss this with my wife, who will not believe it. Where did you hear about it, and do you have links to any articles about it?
Posted by: I and I | August 8, 2008 5:13 PM
The Chinese Church knows it grew out of persecution, "nothing comes to life unless it dies." And yes, they pray for it for us as well as themselves. I have heard American students who worshipped in house churches say that they take that, "hard is good" mentality to extremes that many of us are not comfortable with. They also have a saying, "Gold fears no fire," which is also a great book on the Chinese Church.
I would say there are Americans who pray for it too. I doubt that persecution would make us any less segregated, but it would change us. I know Christians who think a witness is putting a fish on the back of your car, and others who don't so they can speed.
Will God answer such prayers? Eventually it will probably work out that way. That potter and clay stuff has a lot of beating and molding and yes, fire.
Posted by: frankie | August 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Payshun,
If you're interested in having a conversation about this subject that's good. I am too, and I'm interested in your opinion. I'm open to criticism and if you think my idea of a healthy church is imperfect let me know plainly.
I'm not interested in condesension or snide questions about whether I've ignored my Bible lessons.
Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2008 10:20 PM
Rick, the question is whether a predominately black church is problematic?
.....I think it might be, which is why, despite history, I won't attend one (and in fact have not done so in nearly 40 years).
--------
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20
Did I read that right? There's no integration requirement. Wow, God is in the midst of Black churches. Integration is not a Christian imperative, just an American struggle of conscience. If race doesn't matter, why does it matter so much?
Posted by: SJ Berry | August 8, 2008 11:59 PM
SJ Berry: If race doesn't matter, why does it matter so much?
The issue isn't whether race matters to God but whether at some deep level race (including cultural differences) matters too much to us, and if it does then we should expect the Holy Spirit to prompt us to go into contexts that we don't find comfortable, so that our sense of oneness with Christians of other races can be rooted in real life experience.
meurig
Posted by: meurig | August 9, 2008 3:42 AM
Did I read that right? There's no integration requirement. Wow, God is in the midst of Black churches. Integration is not a Christian imperative, just an American struggle of conscience.
If you understood the context in which the early church was formed, it's clear that integration was assumed -- my pastor has been preaching through Acts and it's clear that people from all ethnicities were not only welcomed but "expected." If you look at, say, Jehovah's Witnesses you'll notice that they follow the same ideology. Only when the church became "establishment" did it fall according to racial lines.
Something I just thought of that's related to the topic: When I was in the sixth grade -- I was one of the few blacks and the only black male in my class at a suburban Christian academy founded in my white, Calvinistic childhood church -- my other black classmates brought up this song, "Jericho Fit the Battle of Jericho," that they apparently had learned in their black church and wanted the rest of the class to learn. I distinctly remember there being no response (and I didn't know the song myself).
Posted by: Rick | August 9, 2008 9:30 AM
Rick "...it's clear that people from all ethnicities were not only welcomed but "expected."
Rick, Predominately Black churches are not exclusive. Like most churches they reach out to the communities they are located in without regard to race or ethnicity.
It is still unclear why you have not visited a predominately Black church or assume it would unwelcoming. Why wouldn't you have the same expectation about a predominately white church?
-----
meurig
I have been a minority in the workplace my entire 30 year career. I was one of 21 black people in college. Those were the two places that I experienced discrimination most. I also experienced humanity. The same people are in the church. God doesn't require an integrated environment to speak to our humanity.
I go back to my original point. I am not a racial category. I am a part of humanity and I can worhip in all Black, diverse, and predominately white congregations and know that God is in the midst. I can also maintain a membership in a predominately Black church without be labeled in need of racial healing.
Again, the references to the "segregated hour" are taken out of historical context in the article and posts. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Billy Graham grappled with the role of the Christian church in fighting racial injustice in the United States. MLK challenged Graham on the evangelical practice of segregated worship services. Graham committed to only preaching before integrated audiences and was attacked for it. If we do not understand our history we are doomed to repeat it.
Posted by: SJ Berry | August 9, 2008 6:00 PM
Predominately Black churches are not exclusive. Like most churches they reach out to the communities they are located in without regard to race or ethnicity.
I never said they were.
It is still unclear why you have not visited a predominately Black church or assume it would unwelcoming. Why wouldn't you have the same expectation about a predominately white church?
I actually have visited black churches, but since I grew up conservative Presbyterian doing so proved to be somewhat of a culture shock (even the black churches I went to in my early childhood were Presbyterian). Besides, I committed even before my teens (in the early 1970s) to racial integration, even in the pew, and I found myself often being ostracized by other blacks in the process because it just wasn't "done" then (and religion had nothing to do with it) -- even my own parents didn't understand. On the other hand, because of numerous associations and friendships I've maintained over the years, I always was connected to a network of larger, predominately-white churches, so I've stayed there. That said, I worship with more fellow African-Americans today than I ever have in my life.
Posted by: Rick | August 9, 2008 6:29 PM
Rick, I'm a bit saddened by your church experience. Individuals and what I'll call keepers of conventional wisdom can sometimes do harm. Most times they are well meaning and react to change based on their experience which is may be very limited and fearful.
Our experiences are very different. I was a teen in the 70's and lived in a rather diverse community. I still disagree with the premise of this article and thank you for clarifying your perspective on predominately Black churches. I apologize for reacting to your Trinity UCC post. For me, it is such an overused argument and does not represent the rich history and diversity of the Black church. It also colors the tremendous contributions of Trinity and its congregation to the community with a 30-second soundbite brush.
Posted by: SJ Berry | August 9, 2008 9:36 PM
Eric,
I meant you no disrespect. I apologize if I offended you. My questions were legitimate because of what you said. You said: "Racial diversity in the pews is far down the list of what a healthy church should be aspiring too."
the crux of your argument is that reconciliation across racial lines is not important. The bible would disagree with you. I was wondering if you had read Revelation because it was a big enough deal for God to give a vision of a unified humanity to John that he wrote it down. It was a big enough deal for Jesus to go to a Samaritan town and save an entire village.
My question is why haven't you seen that?
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 9, 2008 10:33 PM
For me, it is such an overused argument and does not represent the rich history and diversity of the Black church.
For me, it's bigger than that. Just as white conservative white churches can and in many cases have become insular, so can black churches -- because everyone who's around for a while picks up on the "lingo" you learn fairly quickly who's "in" and who's "out." And that's where discrimination begins.
Posted by: Rick | August 9, 2008 11:39 PM
Payshun,
No problem. I probably overreacted to your questions. In recent posts I've been asked several times whether or not I've forgotten some well known Biblical admonition in a way that wasn't meant to be instructive, but condescending.
The ideal church pictured in Revelation is the universal church - one church in Christ, which all Christians are apart of whether we look at it this way or not. Christians often see ourselves divided by denominations, national lines, racial lines, ethnic lines, political lines, etc, but in God's eyes we're one body and we should think of ourselves this way. I have seen this.
But this one church in Christ is not the same thing as congregations. We will always have separate congregations based on geography, physical worship space, customs, worship styles, and other real-world constraints.
What I was saying to Rick was that the vast majority of individuals (and not just white people) don't feel there is a great need for racial reconciliation in their lives. They don’t harbor any ill will towards people of other races. Yes, they realize there are larger societal issues with race, but that has little bearing on the needs of their particular community and congregation. Ministry to the poor, the lost, the broken, the sick, etc. is seen as a much higher priority. This is certainly a justifiable prioritization in my mind.
Posted by: Eric | August 11, 2008 11:15 AM
What I was saying to Rick was that the vast majority of individuals (and not just white people) don't feel there is a great need for racial reconciliation in their lives.
You may be right about that, and I see that as a problem. Many (if not most) African-Americans see their church as a haven from racism but today, I believe, fear "rocking the boat" because they're simply trying to make their way.
Yesterday I visited a local suburban independent megachurch -- every August I go on a "tour," visiting different churches I usually can't because I have a commitment to the music ministry of my own -- and it struck me just how "antiseptic" it seemed. I never got the impression that its members had done serious suffering or taken a stand for the sake of the Gospel, focusing primarily on their own lives.
Posted by: Rick | August 11, 2008 11:47 AM
Rick and Frankie,
Okay, I did talk with my wife about mainland Chinese praying for American Christians to undergo persecution. Contrary to my expectations, she confirmed that many do that. (However, she didn't think persecution was really the right word to use--I think she described it along the lines of "challenged in their Christianity.") She says that it comes partly out of the belief, as both of you said, that difficulty and crisis make a person's character stronger, but also that there are many Chinese Christians who feel that a large part of the American church is doing something very wrong, namely "Americanizing" Christian truth for the rest of the world (i.e. equating Christianity with American-style capitalism and foreign policy and seeing America as a chosen Christian nation). They see the American Christian establishment as a harlot of sorts, and pray not for its destruction but for its cleansing.
Anyway, I know it's off the original topic.
Posted by: I and I | August 11, 2008 12:57 PM
Well, if anyone is still reading or commenting here, I'll add my perspective... I, a white woman who grew up in a very non-evangelical United Methodist church, was involved for a time in a very evangelical, charismatic, pentacostal Spanish language church. This was something God called me to - not something I was comfortable with (at all...). My experience of being obedient and worshiping in a new way, despite the discomfort for me, has had a HUGE impact on my understanding of the unfatholable breadth and depth of our God. One experience in particular stands out - I was attending a very LOUD prayer service where my brothers and sisters were crying out to God in a very literal sense. I prayed "Lord, what's up with all this noise!" and received the response (one of the few times I feel I have received an immediated, clear response from the Lord) "They are crying out to me because they know that they truly have no where else to go to. You as an educated, middle-class, white person believe that you can solve most of your troubles by your own strength. Those around you, because of their difficult experiences and limited resources, know that they need me." This was a lesson I never could have learned in such a profound way if I had not been in that uncomfortable place. Our God is limitless in the ways He touches us and reaches us, and we humans are so limited! Stepping out of our comfort zone can help us understand the greatness of our God. I no longer attend such a church, and I still don't feel completly comfortable with that "style" of worship, prayer or preaching, but there are times when I miss it, because I know it allows me to experience another aspect of our God that I don't get to experience when I'm comfortable.
Posted by: Jennifer | August 11, 2008 1:10 PM
Eric,
Race and nationalism were the single biggest issue Paul dealt with during his day (besides the constant problem of sinning people.) The Jewish Christians did not want non-Jews around them and felt they weren't part of the family. Paul (to his credit) fought that everywhere he went. This is coming from someone that is not always the biggest Paul fan, I find his zealotry to be kind of yucky. Give me the mystics any day. (and Paul was one of us too)
You are absolutely right about people not seeing it as important. It is the single most divisive issue that nobody (especially in this country) wants to deal with. But it is the gospel and therefore should not be ignored just because it makes people feel uncomfortable. This issue (especially because of our country's history) is by far the messiest and hardest one to deal with. I would argue that by learning to recocile all people across ethnic lines one sees the face of Jesus in a much clearer way. That alone should make it a bigger priority.
p
Posted by: Payshun | August 11, 2008 3:14 PM
Thanks Jennifer,
Yes, I'm still reading and really appreciate what you have to say, because I see these blogs degenerating into banter and trying to "one-up" each other with "knowledge" "expertise" and intellectualism. I enjoy hearing about your experience and your internal interpretattion and transformation.
The "comfort zone" you talk about stepping out of is not something you control. "I'll go here, I'll experience this, and I'll tell so and so about it" This amounts to an experiment. To step out of one's comfort zone is to let go of control. To let an experience unfold and be open to the changes that come.
What do you think?
Teresa
Posted by: Teresa L Minneapolis | August 11, 2008 8:36 PM
Oh, I forgot. I meant to say that what you have written about is about your experience of "letting go and "letting God" I think you are right on!
Thanks
Posted by: Teresa L Minneapolis | August 11, 2008 8:38 PM
For most of my first year in a new town in Florida I chose to attend a very small, community black church (and was the only white person there). So I was a one-person church integration project (well 3 people when my husband and son came too). I really appreciated the traditions and culture which were so different from white church ones and was welcomed into the church and its choir - even to lead white church songs. But in the end, it did not meet my needs. Sitting through 2+ hour services was quite trying, it was too small to have child care for my toddler, and the sermons just didn't speak to my upper middle class experience and life. But I will continue to attend there once a month because I value the relationships I've made in the community and the fact that I may be the only person in my community other than the kids who has truly crossed racial barriers in getting to know the people just down the street of another race (it's sort of a gentrifying formerly African American section of town with a small remnant black population).
Posted by: Lindsey | August 12, 2008 6:02 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?