I agree with the 'multicultural' term over the ethnic. Our little church on the north side on Mpls is bless with several races worshipping together. I believe that we were drawn together because of the style of worship we have and that we have become more intentional at welcoming people for being people. Not black, asian, etc. Just brothers and sisters in Christ.

OK - awhile ago someone here challenged me to go to a church here in Mpls and I did. It was 'hip-hop' Sunday and my ears are still ringing 4 days after the service. The pastor I was familure with as he spoke at a conference that my sons attended two years ago and they still talk about what he had to say. I am ordering the series that he is speaking on over the next few months because I just need to hear the whole series and I am not sure that my ears will take too much more. (lol)

To me the strength of the Christian Church was in the diversity of it's denominations. High Church - Low Church, traditional vs contempoary, trans - con or crackers and grape juice. We saught out and found what spoke to us in worship so that we might be drawn closer to an Almighty God. Now - if in our search we were looking for only a 'white or black' congregation - not in agreement with that. We should look for fellow believers in Chirst and enjoy the patchwork of God's creation and creativity in our brothers and sisters.

My ideal congregation - a pastor like I heard last Sunday - a little less animated. (please remember I'm Swedish - potatoe sausage...) Organ - Choir - Guitar - Drums - Solos - etc. OK - Dance, but that is a little on the edge for me - but I know that it will allow someone else to join into worship and that is what is important. (again - Swed here - lutefisk and cream sauce...)

Some of you are on the same page as me and others are running the other direction. So - we will contine to sing the old hymn "When we all get to Heaven - what a day of rejoicing that will be. When we all see Jesus - we'll sing and shout the victory." (I will be the one with ear plugs - lol)

See you in church!

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 21, 2008 2:07 PM

I want to be surrounded by everyone even those that I don't agree with. That's the point of reconciliation. The point is that Jews and Gentiles are one, white and black one... I really like your post and I do believe in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural churches. They are what the early church was.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 21, 2008 2:21 PM

As the church became larger and established, such divisions over class; culture; theological emphasis; and, sadly, race were inevitable because things were bound to get "watered down." And if you make an effort to break some of those barriers people look at you funny. It's sad to me that we can't be together on a regular basis.

Posted by: Rick | August 21, 2008 3:10 PM

I was truly shocked and very saddened when I saw and heard the sermons from black Chicago church. I have friends of many cultures and races, also, and they were very sad and commented to me that the church they attend preachs love one another as God loves you. The hatred and racisn I heard in these sermons was very distribuing to them and me.

Posted by: Wanda | August 21, 2008 3:48 PM

The considerable racism in the church today should dispel that notion. On the last thread where we had this discussion I shared the experience I had with the son of my then-girlfriend, who made at least one ignorant comment towards me that, had he attended my church, he would have known better.

You use as an example of "considerable racism in the church today" a grade-school age kid asking why municipal contracts aren't granted based on things like cost, quality of work and experience rather than the race of a contractor. While there's a case to be made for minority set-asides in contracting, using this as an example of "considerable racism" in "the church" is laughable.

Posted by: Robert | August 21, 2008 3:49 PM

I grew up in a church located in a predominantly wealthy and predominantly conservative community, and the culture of the worship (as opposed to the style) was conservative and supportive of wealth. By that, I mean that the teaching, the fellowship messages, even the approaches to stewardship, were heavy on acknowledgement of the blessings given us by virtue of our individual efforts at education, work, etc. and short on challenge to use that wealth for others (but the church grew and had a lot of good "stuff").

Later, I worshipped in a church that was very liberal and had many homosexual congregants, and the culture was liberal and supportive of diversity and inclusion, particularly around sexuality issues.

People supported each others' beliefs, in both these settings, and everybody felt pretty comfortable. But in both these churches, I felt significant discomfort. I wondered how poorer, more marginalized folks would respond to the self-congratulatory tones of my childhood church home, and I struggled with how folks less certain about God's design for homosexuals would respond to the "we know better" affirmations of the church from my young adulthood. As a confused, seeking, moderate Christian (on issues from wealth to sexuality to war, to you name it), I appeared and felt like an extremist in both of the these churches, though they were vibrant and had beautiful, meaningful worship services.

I should add that neither of these churches, nor the ones I've belonged to since, have been particularly welcoming (by virtue of "groupiness" not intent) to people of color. I love how my current and former church homes have challenged me to meet God in worship. But I don't love how they have presumed that congregants would fit into the group ethos, without much challenge to walk in Jesus' shoes in terms of knowing, loving, and worshipping side by side with those much different than ourselves. I read Pastor Kim's post as a challenge to churches to intentionally become more like that. And I think that would be good for all of us.

Posted by: Stephanie | August 21, 2008 4:10 PM

Jay, I'm not sure God wants us to divide along generational lines any more than he likes that we're divided along racial and ethnic lines.

I know I don't like the idea. I don't even like the terms.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 21, 2008 4:31 PM

A few months ago we remodeled our bathroom. My daughter was at the house for much of the time the crew worked there. By the time the old bathroom was torn down, she had invited the entire crew to church.

That girl never stops talking. Sometimes it drives me nuts. I was extremely proud of her for going there -- and inviting the people in her circle to church.

I get the point of this article. On a simpler level, I just wish people would invite people, any kind and color, to church more often. New faces, no matter what color or background, are great for any church.

Posted by: frankie | August 21, 2008 5:04 PM

It seems strange to me that people spend this much time thinking about the demographics of their congregation.

I disagree with the idea of quotas for churches, ("A local congregation ought to reflect the full diversity of its particular geographic community. I would go further and say that, in accordance with our call to discipleship, every local church in the world has a mandate to be as multicultural as possible.")

Our time would be better spent reaching the lost and preaching the word.

Posted by: Bradley | August 21, 2008 5:23 PM

There is another complicating factor here, and that is culture or, for lack of a better work, style. Among the different types of churches there are very formal liturgical churches and informal charismatic ones, and there are definite demographic aspects in terms of which style of worship appeals to who.

This means that you might have a church that has a very white and middle-class congregation, not because african-americans and people from modest backgrounds aren't welcomed when they show up, but because the worship style isn't the sort they are familiar with.

I don't see an easy answer to this one. I certainly can't demand that Lutherans or Episcopalians abandon their pipe organs and prayer books any more than I could demand that African-American churches abandon the gospel music and call-and-response preaching styles. These are both very valid expressions of Christianity that communicate the gospel to real people.

I know folks here will resist the half-solution, but we might be better off taking this one step at a time, with more interchurch cooperation on service projects, instead of intentional multiculturalism. As such, you will have a church that reflects the cultural (and racial) divisions in society, but it would also be one that reflects good will across racial and cultural and class lines.

I would also like to encourage individual Christians, or small groups, to leave their comfort zones every now and then and sit in on a service at a different church with a different racial or class makeup. You never can tell when you might make a new friend.

And that goes for everyone. A little black gospel won't kill white folks, and I doubt that a little classical organ music will do a whole lot of permanent harm to African-Americans either. Don't expect them to change, but if they don't make you feel welcome, that's more likely to be their problem than yours.

I suspect that if there is going to be a fully multicultural church, it won't be driven by the folks up front, but by the folks in the pews.

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 21, 2008 5:32 PM

Lord Voldemort, your comments are based on some underlying racially- and ethically-based assumptions. One big example is the notion that white Christians aren't supposed to enjoy black gospel music or call-and-response preaching, or that black Christians aren't supposed to enjoy European-style-classical organ music. I don't think those assumptions are valid.

One of my sons, who just graduated from a Lutheran seminary, spent a year in a mostly African-American Lutheran congregation. About the only white folks in the church most Sundays were he, the organist, and a homeless man from the neighborhood who often attended. This church knew how to do traditional liturgy and do it well. But they also knew all the gospel styles and did them well.

Further, anyone--black or white--who attends a liturgical church knows something about call-and-response. After all, what else are antiphonal psalm reading/singing and responsive prayer?

I like your comments about inter-church cooperation, however. And I do agree that the people in the pews will likely be the drivers of multicultural development in the churches. At the same time, it would be interesting to read Rev. Kim telling us about how his own congregation went from 90% Korean to its current very diverse makeup (see the church's Web site liked next to his picture above).

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 21, 2008 5:51 PM

Style has everything to do with how we worship. Worship is like a heart-language, and frankly, when I'm worshipping, I tune out most of what's around me.

Fellowship, on the other hand is a different story.

I personally like to attend Bible studies at work or somewhere outside of my congregation because then I get very different insights from what I get on Sunday mornings. The cultural mix is different and welcome.

It makes me a more well-rounded person to read some of these blogs, but no, I wouldn't want to go to a church that teaches those things. I don't like worshipping in a place where people enjoy theological debate, although I don't mind jumping in on one from time to time. I also don't really care for my church to mention politics at all, but I do like to discuss faith and politics, or to respond to politics among people of faith.

I am well aware that other cultures have successfully reconciled to races they've had conflict with in the past -- and was wondering if our author could bring any insight from his experience with that.

Posted by: frankie | August 21, 2008 6:31 PM

Individualism and the American Protestant spirit (with thousands of individualized, self-appointed popes...er, authorities) has nothing to do with this of course. It's all racial duh.

Posted by: aaron | August 21, 2008 7:24 PM

Somehow, Rick, I would never have pegged you as attending an Alliance church.

Posted by: Gordon | August 21, 2008 8:24 PM

Thank you for writing this. I was a student of Peter Wagner's, and I think he's got a lot going for him. But his Homogeneous Unit Principle was not part of it. It's true- the Church grows faster following it. But the Church no longer looks like the Kingdom, and thus ceases to truly be the Church.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | August 21, 2008 8:41 PM

Posted by: Bradley | August 21, 2008 5:18 PM

Hey Big Guy, didn't you read the thread on that other post? This IS heaven! What, do you think, we're just going to "fly away" or something? I'm pretty sure that that particular hymn is not on the approved list for some of these churches.

I am sorry - this is not 'Heaven' - some can believe that. i read in my Bible that there will be a 'new Heaven and a new earth'. What that make-up will be exactly - not sure, but I an looking for new!

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 21, 2008 8:49 PM

Jedidiah,

Do you know Erna (spelling,) Doug and Sandy? I wonder if you know my best friend Nate. I knew a lot of folks from Oxy during the late 90's.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 21, 2008 10:09 PM

Payshun- I attended in the early 90s (exactly 10 years after Obama), so do not know Erna, but did know Doug and Sandy quite well, and went to their wedding. Sandy was my RA in MSI, in my first experience at Oxy.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | August 21, 2008 11:03 PM

Concerning my church, one thing I just remembered.

Some years ago the senior pastor, who has also served as a vice president and interim president of the entire denomination, took a trip to southeast Asia to visit missionaries out there -- the denomination is so focused on foreign missions that 40 percent of the budget goes for that -- and in the process confronted them about their racism. Some of them confessed that they had a real contempt for the people they were supposed to be ministering to, and as a result the Holy Spirit did some serious breaking through. (He took with him our then-worship pastor, who is black.)

Posted by: Rick | August 21, 2008 11:39 PM

"Researchers estimate that only 6 percent of churches are multiracial"

So 94% of churches only have one race in their congregation? I would like to see the studies from those researchers. You need to provide a link if you are going to make statements like that.

Posted by: DITE | August 22, 2008 1:19 AM

It's laughable only to people who don't get the historical implications of racism, which many white Christians still have trouble with precisely because they don't worship consistently with blacks

You’re missing the points I was making. 1) It’s not evidence of racism when a grade school age kid wonders why a municipality doesn’t award contracts based on merit instead of the race of the contractors. Perhaps he was taught by his mother that he shouldn’t judge people based on their race. At its base, this is not a racist philosophy. A child can be forgiven for not understanding all the nuances of a policy of minority contracting set-asides. But not in your mind, I guess. Racism must be the source of this kid’s viewpoint! It’s no wonder this relationship didn’t work out.

2) Even if you could provide other examples of the racism that this kid and his mom exhibited that showed they held many racist viewpoints and it could be proven they picked these up at their church and not somewhere else, it still wouldn’t be evidence to back up your outlandish claim that “the church” is filled with “considerable racism”.

he certainly didn't get that attitude from the public school system
Yes, because the public schools spend a lot of time educating youngsters on public policies like minority contracting preferences.

You see, the church they attended was in an upscale white suburb which drew only from that immediate area…
I think churches should draw from their immediate area. People should attend neighborhood churches rather than driving from other towns or other states. Not only does it build community and makes it easier to minister to people in your congregation who are in need, it saves on gasoline consumption. This isn’t a deficit of a church.

and if you weren't in a family raising children you would have felt out-of-place as it was
Deal with it, I say. Get over your own insecurities. Feeling comfortable in church because it meets all your preconceived notions of what a church should be isn’t good either. I’m sure there are people who come to your church that felt uncomfortable at times too, but they stayed, right?

On top of that, it was pretty right-wing at times
I guess it all depends on what you mean by “right-wing”. This could be good or bad. Pastor preaching about the glories of George Bush = bad. Pastor preaching that people should honor their marriage vows = good. There are a bunch of liberals I know who would consider this moral instruction and not like being told how to live their lives.

staff from the campus ministry I attended tried to get me to leave solely because I was black, never mind that I had worshipped with whites for the past decade and was cultually (sic) compatible with it.
This is definitely wrong, but again, one example of whites behaving badly doesn’t mean “the church” contains “considerable racism”. It just means that some white people at this specific church didn’t know how to deal with a black guy wanting to get involved.

Posted by: Robert | August 22, 2008 6:46 AM

Apparently, one where white people spend all day on their knees begging forgiveness from every "minority" person for the evils committed by others of their race.

I've seen that exactly once in my life, at a "March for Jesus" about a dozen years ago.

So 94% of churches only have one race in their congregation? I would like to see the studies from those researchers.

That research is true.

On top of that, it was pretty right-wing at times

Another son of hers regularly picked up literature from the Conservative Chronicle that someone in the church had left on the table, and after investigating it turned out that its editor was an unreconstructured Southern racist. Now, someone higher up in the church had to have approved that, and since much of that stuff was antithetical to the Gospel it should not have been there.

Feeling comfortable in church because it meets all your preconceived notions of what a church should be isn’t good either.

Based on your posts, you appear to be a married white man with children, and too often evangelical churches cater to those folks at the expense of everyone else. FWIW, I'm a single, childless black man, and if that pastor preaches only messages about maintaining families it's going to be alienating.

You’re missing the points I was making.

No, you missed my point. People don't sit down and instruct their kids to be resentful of "them"; such attitudes are caught in private conversations with adults who are more concerned with their community standing.

It just means that some white people at this specific church didn’t know how to deal with a black guy wanting to get involved.

Not quite. This came from the very top of the umbrella parachurch ministry which ran the fellowship -- or, at the very least, it happened with its blessing.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 9:09 AM

But it seems to me that too many white people just don't "get" why most African American people attend church with other African American people, Chinese with other Chinese, Koreans with other Koreans, Hispanic with other Hispanics. It's not because they can't go to white churches any more. It's because they want to hold onto their culture, and for one day a week not have to be diverse but to be with people like them. To have a service in their langauge, their style of preaching and singing, their food at the potluck, done the way they want to, without some white people telling them what to do.

What is so wrong with this? In 1950 it was wrong. People were excluded. Today it is a choice.

Milli

Posted by: Milli | August 22, 2008 9:25 AM

Sorry I pushed the wrong key.
To continue, I guess you could also call any homogeneous gathering of people a "gang".
It got me asking how any of the churches I have attended in the past could be differentiated from these other kinds of gatherings if I was trying to describe them to an alien anthropologist.
If the only difference between us and the non believer is what we say we believe, I fail to see how we offer much hope to the world. The man from South Africa was a victim of our lack of Kingdom reality it would seem.
The fact that we do not live in Heaven is not an excuse our not living like we belong there nor does it remove from us the responsibility to represent it to our world.

Posted by: wayne | August 22, 2008 9:37 AM

One more comment. I am a white person worshipping at a Chinese church because my daughter is Chinese (see posts above from Milli). I understand your issue with prejudiced churches who exclude. In that case, I wonder if people are truly believers. In most cases, is it really that? I don't believe so in my experienc with numerous African American and nationality friends.

Posted by: Milli | August 22, 2008 9:56 AM

I hear what you're saying Milli. But it's not the white people who don't get it, at least not on this blog. The author of this commentary and the author of the previous commentaries about the merits of multicultural worship are not white. Neither are some of the most frequent commenters who advocate for intentional interracial worship.

Most of the white people who have been raising issues with the commentaries understand that the primary reasons that churches are segregated racially is because of cultural differences. Sometimes this is regretable, sometimes not, but it's not because of racism or an unwelcoming attitude towards people who are different.

Posted by: Eric | August 22, 2008 10:17 AM

Rick is all about politics, it appears, and little about salvation and a personal relationship with God.

You conveniently forget one thing -- you're not simply saved for your own sake but to be part of the Body of Christ. A large part of that means doing the works of God down here which likely will have social or political implications. Botton line, if your "salvation" or "personal relationship" is merely about the "fire insurance," you've totally missed the point of the Gospel.

Most of the white people who have been raising issues with the commentaries understand that the primary reasons that churches are segregated racially is because of cultural differences.

Unfortunately, that's not always true; in fact, "cultural differences" was the excuse given to me as to why I should have attended that separate black college fellowship (never mind that up until 10 years ago I attended Presbyterian churches, which aren't culturally different). And it certainly wasn't true in the South, where everyone belongs to pretty much the same culture.

DITE -- I don't have a link to that specific study but have heard such stats quoted over the years.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 10:43 AM

"DITE -- I don't have a link to that specific study but have heard such stats quoted over the years."

I still can't believe that 94% of churches have congregations that are 100% the same race. I've been in the congregation of very white churches in South Dakota and Minnesota and a very black church in DC. None were 100% one race.

Posted by: DITE | August 22, 2008 11:00 AM

I still can't believe that 94% of churches have congregations that are 100% the same race.

It wasn't saying exactly that -- most churches are primarily, not necessarily exclusively, one race or another (although many are). It's that disparity that keeps churches culturally static, most notably when it comes to leadership -- what issues are being raised in the pulpit, spending priorities, outreach, connections with other churches. But I've been to many churches where I was the only black and black churches where there were literally no one of any other color.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 11:12 AM

Is there certain percentage that makes these churches multiracial?

The figure I've heard is less than 75 percent "majority."

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 12:02 PM

"I second that. It sounds arrogant to me that churches hold different services with only the music being changed -- you get the feeling that we give only what we want to and on our terms. Doing that, you really can't focus on God."

Usually, the reason for doing so is to create a comfortable environment for new attendees. Either way, I'm not sure why this ought to be considered arrogant.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 22, 2008 12:28 PM

The actual rate of "monochronicity" as estimated by Dougherty in his study, is 42.6%

Posted by: Gordon | August 22, 2008 12:44 PM

Usually, the reason for doing so is to create a comfortable environment for new attendees. Either way, I'm not sure why this ought to be considered arrogant.

Whom does it focus on? The people? Or on God?

It turns out that there is actually quite a bit of research on this issue, and it certainly does not show that 94% of congregations are monochromatic.

I find that hard to believe -- the only places I've ever found diversity in the pews other in my own church are in some mainline assemblies and independent mega-churches. Evangelical churches, especially those affiliated with specific denominations, are still pretty segregated.

And besides that, there's also the issue of how involved the minority members are in decision-making -- it was that lack of authority in the church that drove black members out of white churches in the 1800s. It's not just, or primarily, about numbers.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 12:52 PM

Most of your assertions are anecdotal at best.

I'm not so sure about that -- I just don't have access to the specific numbers and it would take a while for me to get them. I did read parts of an article that Dougherty wrote, and it does specifically mention that racial segregation in the church was less prevalent in the West than in other regions of the country (I live in the Northeast and also spent time in the South).

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 1:13 PM

I meant to say, a good many of those small churches are either black or white. The same does not hold true for the medium to larger churches in this area.

Posted by: Bradley | August 22, 2008 2:04 PM

Where I disagree is with the assumption that this is necessarily a bad thing. I do not support quotas (racial, familial, or otherwise) for congregations.

The problem with racially homogenous churches is that the world's stereotypes of the "other" -- often expressed even on this very blog -- often make their way into such assemblies, thus negating the concept of Christian "brotherhood" and sabotaging our witness in the process, and the people who exhibit those sentiments have the audacity to tell blacks, "Just get over it." As I mentioned before, the civil-rights movement (which of course started in the black church) pitted Christians against Christians, which we should be deeply ashamed about. On the other hand, I learned in the almost-all-white church I grew up in that not all whites are racists, and that showed me the possibilities of what God can and wants to do. That is why I'm such a proponent of integration in the church.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 2:14 PM

My point is that it is hardly relevant.

Based on some of the ignorant comments about blacks that have been made on this blog and cries of playing the "race card" and bellyaching about imaginary persecution if they're challenged, I beg to differ. After all, some of the people they disparaged were "brothers in Christ" -- at least in theory.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 2:55 PM

The music focuses on God. The style focuses on people. You could just as well level this argument against serving punch.

As someone who has written Christian music, I think it's just a tad presumptuous to say that the music by definition focuses on God because much of it actually doesn't. And it has nothing to do with serving punch.

How could relaying your own experience possibly not constitute anecdotal evidence?

Because it's just not my experience. It may not be yours, but that's neither here nor there.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 3:59 PM

It's because they want to hold onto their culture, and for one day a week not have to be diverse but to be with people like them. To have a service in their langauge, their style of preaching and singing, their food at the potluck, done the way they want to, without some white people telling them what to do.

He actually addresses this in Part 2.

And here's the problem I often faced: What if there are parts of the majority culture you enjoy and identify with? My favorite musical group growing up was white, and that didn't go over too well in my family even though everyone knew it was good music (and I'm still a fan). What if some of your most intimate friends and even dating partners were of that culture, which was my reality? That's where parts of the "culture" can get possessive.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 6:22 PM

Payshun -

Emerson bases his estimates on what? If a church is 80% n0on-white, its minority composition exceeds the minority composition of large areas of the US. And why is 80% the criterion? I would argue that a church is integrated if it welcomes people of any race or ethnicity. In some cases it's moot if there is no significant minority population in the vicinity of the church.

Similarly, where did Curtis Paul DeYoung get his numbers? How does he define "integrated"? Surely he doesn't mean that 95% of the churches refuse to allow minorities to join or attend?

Dougherty's study used data. One of the things he pointed out was that it is very difficult to establish with certainty the point where a church should be considered "integrated", and a lot has to do with the composition of the population near the church.

Posted by: Gordon | August 22, 2008 7:04 PM

" . . . ou have a situation called "white flight" that affected even churches . . ."

A vast overgeneralization. Perhaps that did occur at some point in the past. Perhaps there are even churches today that moved to the suburbs to avoid minorities. But I would suggest that there are very few churches - even in suburbia - that would deny membership to minorities. Additionally, I would note that there are large areas of the US that have much lower proportions of minorities than do the major metropolitan areas, and never had a problem with "white flight".

Even if white flight had something to do with the ethnic composition of churches in the past, any such effect is at this point merely an historical artifact. I repeat my earlier assertion: a church is integrated if it welcomes people without regard to their race or culture. To suggest anything else is to impute motivation for which there is no evidence.

Posted by: Gordon | August 22, 2008 8:07 PM

Quote Jin Kim - "In our local congregation, the Church of All Nations, we use the term multicultural as opposed to multiethnic or multiracial. Not all churches can be multiethnic if the geographic context does not allow for it."
Here you suggest moving past the idea of measuring inclusiveness by race.

Jin Kim - "Researchers estimate that only 6 percent of churches are multiracial, and only 2 percent are intentionally multiracial (as opposed to the cause being neighborhood demographic shifts). Instead of seeing this as a golden opportunity, we see it as a threat to our safe and secure homogeneity. We succumb to our primitive need to be surrounded by members of our 'group.' Is this not a form of ecclesial tribalism?"
Here, you justify your criticism of evangelical churches as racist because they don't intentionally strive to be multi-racial.
There truly is no winning on this issue.

Posted by: Joel | August 22, 2008 8:29 PM

What evidence do you have for this? Or is this just another of your unsupported assertions?

Didn't you mention on another thread that you were Orthodox? If that be true I certainly would disrupt things if I brought Calvinist theology and jazz into your church. And besides, that very issue is addressed in Part 2.

Posted by: Rick | August 22, 2008 9:35 PM

Rick - that's an important point. I am indeed Orthodox, and there would be quite an uproar if someone attempted to introduce anything other than the traditional liturgy and theology into our church. Wouldn't matter if he were black, white, or Korean. And that's my point - it isn't race, it's the tradition (liturgy, theology, etc.). We are in the suburbs - but not because we fled there to escape anything. That's where the price of land was cheapest when the church was built. And we have a wild assortment of racial and cultural backgrounds. So long as you are willing to be Orthodox, no one cares what racial or ethnic group you happen to come from. This, I suggest, accounts for most of the difference in ethnic composition of churches, once location is taken into account. Our church has a large middle eastern component, as well as a somewhat smaller Slavic component, because at the time it was founded those were the people in the area who preferred Orthodoxy. But at this point about half our congregation consists of white and black converts from Protestantism. Almost all of these people became converts, as I did, because we had become concerned by the trends in theology and worship in the groups to which we previously belonged. So our church is becoming increasingly multi-racial and multi-ethnic, in large part because a lot of us have rejected exactly he innovations you suggest we would forbid in our church.

Posted by: Gordon | August 22, 2008 9:50 PM

Gordon said:
I repeat my earlier assertion: a church is integrated if it welcomes people without regard to their race or culture.

Me:
If you want to find out his methodology then I suggest you read the book. It's called People of the Dream and it discusses this a lot. Let me just say this. If the people are not there then it's not integrated. I will build on that shortly. But first I am going to address your straw man. No one is saying that many churches deny membership like they did in the 60's and 70's. That's the argument you created. I am sure some probably do but they are shrinking in number every year.

We are saying that diversity and multi-ethnicity should reflect all elements of the church. Even though my theology is more based off of Catholic and Orthodox understanding and tradition I still enjoy the charismatic approach of dance and expression. It's a mixture of all of it that allows for the church to shine, not just one denomination or church.

There is one community that I have seen master this. They live in France. It's called the Taize community. Maybe you have heard of them. They are deeply catholic but the theology reflects all of Christendom. They are monks and worship in chanting but all forms are welcome.

Also it's not integrated if the people are not there. If you live in a major city and you don't have diverse worship styles, different ethnic, gender, and generational leaders and preachers, a theology that seeks to unite all or an outreach to different cultural communities it's not diverse.

Let's take my movement for instance. It was created from white flight as much as from the Holy Spirit's mercy. I belong to the Vineyard. I don't agree with much of its' theology but that's where I am at. The church I go to is really diverse. We have many different ethnic groups ranging from Chaldean to African-American. But I can tell you that it is deathly afraid of having different cultural (colored) people preach in it's pulpit.

There has never been a black or Latin man (or woman) that has ever guess preached at my church. That's sad. Not only that but they ignore the contributions of famous black, Latin and other church leaders. They do this by ignoring black history month and every other ethnic month out there. I bring this up to point to simple fact. when you walk into the majority of protestant churches today these issues are not talked about.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 22, 2008 10:04 PM

Gordon,

I call it a strong man when Jin already talked about it in his post and everyone is conceding that you are right when it comes to mono-ethnic places.

Jin said:
"Not all churches can be multiethnic if the geographic context does not allow for it, but every church can be multicultural if we understand the term culture to encompass different generations, socio-economic backgrounds, education levels, etc. A local congregation ought to reflect the full diversity of its particular geographic community. I would go further and say that, in accordance with our call to discipleship, every local church in the world has a mandate to be as multicultural as possible."

You used the word integrated. Integration implies a deeper sense of meeting. It means inviting the other into your home and making them your family. We are talking about urban and sub-urban churches that have easy connections to different ethnic communities they can reach out to. Let's take Evergreen Baptist in Los Angeles. It's an Asian church that consistently ignored it's predominately Mexican population. It's still a commuter church but it's making inroads into the Mexican community. My point is that there a few churches that can do this and they outnumber the churches you are talking about.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 22, 2008 10:35 PM

Integration means:
The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society or an organization; desegregation.

That sounds more like my definition than yours does. Not only that but you used "the agreed upon point" to illustrate that the church should lessen it's standards in regards to real integration. That makes it a straw man argument. If you had left it at simply not all churches can integrate then I would only argue with your conclusion but since you did not I can argue against the whole thing. You used that argument to bolster your larger conclusion and that doesn't work.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 22, 2008 10:56 PM

"Mine refuses to do so, simply adding on to whatever's there -- during offertories we've had hip-hop, folk, jazz, the gamut."

That is a fine way to do it as well. Just because a different church chooses to do something different with the music doesn't mean it is arrogant for it to do so.

"I put it that way because you seem to want to discount anyone else's experience if it doesn't jibe with your agenda."

I wasn't discounting your experience. I simply said it was anecdotal. If objective research and aggregated data do not correspond with the anecdote, then I will side with the data.

I am glad that your church has had some success in integrating. Different areas present different challenges, however. My brother's church has worked very hard to reach different races and cultures, is located in the city, and boasts a strong bent toward social justice.

Progress toward integration has been very slow, though the church has grown. Minneapolis has some of the most diverse neighborhoods in the world, but worship has been delineated along cultural lines, as are most things in this city.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 23, 2008 1:05 AM

Meh. I've heard the "fire insurance" spiel from reformers before. It's kind of their carrying card.

I don't think anyone disagrees that we are called to disciple and to bring about change in this world. Nobody here is arguing the fire insurance model of Christianity.

This discussion is about whether and how churches can integrate, and what it means if they are failing to do so. It is not about elevating church practices and mission statements to the level of doctrine.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 23, 2008 12:38 PM

I didn't say that. However, there are indeed political and social implications in following Jesus Christ, not least of which is a commitment and responsibility to "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God." It is by such works that demonstrate that you're truly one of His. (I'm not just saying that; He did.)

This is not political. It has nothing to do with who you vote for or what you believe is a proper role of government in a society.

It is all about how the individual relates to other individuals. Do justly, love mercy, walk hand in hand with God... Nothing in that list implies voting ballots, Congressional acts, or tax rates. They are all personal and individual.

Posted by: Watcher | August 23, 2008 9:33 PM

Payshun - I argue that there is no difference between my definition and yours. To the extent that you posit the definition you offered earlier, I argue that integration in those terms - desegregation - has already occurred, except in a few egregious cases. That many churches do not have proportionate representation of minorities is not evidence that they are not integrated.

Posted by: Gordon | August 24, 2008 11:56 AM

Be very careful, Watcher. This comment comes very close to violating the Beliefnet posting guidelines.

We are watching you, Watcher.

Posted by: Don

Don your somewhat selective , when one says my idea of social justice through Christ is the only way Worship is valid , I would question both those comments in regard of your understanding of the Belief net rules of counduct . .

I believe God has attributee also , He also Shows us Grace , Love , Mercy . Yes He also is a Soverign God , Demands Obedience , shows rath , and more .

He is against sex out of wedlock , regardless of who wants to blame who . He is against man deciding in his own soverignity the taking of unborn life , regardless who you want to blame for it . The bottom line is we are all accountable , hence perhaps a better conversation can take place IMO . Seems we blame others for ourselves not Obeying God . The devil made me do it cliche .

To say a person's Prayers are invalid because politically they are pro choice , vote for pro choice , or Non Christian because they belive from historical perspective by economic attempts of redistribution causing misery and a lowering of the quality of life are valid opinions that we in the church should in my opinion get past.

But as always Don , you take what is being said from one side of the arguement and not the questionable comments that perhaps you are more comfortable with in as far as political view .

Your a good man Don , but you forget those that we disagree with most of the time , or myself , are speaking here from their heart and soul also .

Being put into a category that is negative , racist , questioning your ability to worship God regardless if you are supporting income redistribution or a more liberaterian view point is not an attempt to converse , its a failed attempt to ridicule the beliefs of some in an already divided church .

Posted by: Michael | August 24, 2008 3:08 PM

Don your somewhat selective...

Michael, I'm not quite sure what the gist of your lengthy, rambling comment is, but I don't think you are following my reasoning very well. It certainly has nothing to do with any actual political or religious ideas expressed. It has to do with personal attacks on the character of another person posting here.

The relevant section of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct specifically states:

"You agree that you will be courteous to others, even when disagreeing, and even to those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. Do not make negative personal remarks about another's age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, sexual orientation, intelligence, character, appearance, health, mental health, education or any other personal characteristic."--emphasis mine

The comment from Watcher that I responded to was this: "Rick is all about politics, it appears, and little about salvation and a personal relationship with God."

It reads pretty clearly to me that Watcher was not expressing an opinion about one of Rick's ideas, but was attacking Rick personally. This seems to me a clear violation of the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct as quoted above, or else if not, then maybe I don't really understand what "not about them personally" means. Further it seems to be a questioning of Rick's faith, which certainly falls into the "personal characteristic" category, doesn't it? What do you think?

Michael, I have reason to believe that this "Watcher" has been on this forum before, and when he was he caused a tremendous amount of disruption with his personal attacks and all-around nasty, mean-spirited comments, asserting that he was always right and everyone else was wrong. I believe this person was blocked from participating here, and am concerned that he has found a way to come back and disrupt this forum once more. Frankly, if that is the case, I will do absolutely everything I can to keep that from happening (and I know other like-minded people who post here frequently who feel exactly the same way), because I want honest discussion of issues here so we can truly learn from each other. We can't do that when we are constantly under personal attack from someone who isn't hear to learn from us but to browbeat us for not agreeing with him.

Peace,

Posted by: DOn | August 24, 2008 8:37 PM

Don and if you follow rick's Comments you will will see both were at times not understanding and feeling insulted , personally insulted . Rick has a harder shell , at times on email appears to be I am right , not only your wrong , but those who agree with you are based in ignorance , or worse . I would love to have Rick on my debate team politically , but not when I was witnessing or speaking to a person in a man on man , heart to heart , brother to brother talk sharing Christ .

Michael:

I can understand what you are trying to say, but please keep in mind that you really don't know Rick, or me, or anyone else who posts here (unless there's someone you know personally who also posts here). If Rick were to sit next to you at the bus stop, you wouldn't know it was he. Please keep that in mind for the duration of this post.

Electronic media like email, texting, and blogging, are inherently unfriendly media. That comment might surprise you because of the "chatty" nature of texting and email espeically, but nevertheless, it's true. I remind my business communication students of this all the time. When one trying to communicate using electronic media, one shoud keep that in mind. Yes, I'm guilty of ignoring that fact too, and I know that some of my comments come across as lecturing (maybe you are thinking that's what I'm doing right now). But what I am trying to say is that what you perceive as Rick's hard shell well might melt away if you met him in person, or even if you corresponded with him by snail-mail, a more friendly medium. I think you might be pleasantly surprised at the depth of Rick's faith if you met him in person. But since this is primarily a political blog and the topics are for the greater part political, naturally the politics are going to be emphasized more than the faith part. The bottom line is this: when we post things here, we should try and be extra careful to stick to the ideas and not deal with the personalities, especially since we really don't know those personalities. Yes, I'm speaking to myself as well, because I know I haven't always taken my own advice. (And this is something the old Watcher completely refused to do, which is why he was blocked by Beliefnet--this is why I was so concerned about the current Watcher's comment about Rick's faith; the tone sounded way too familiar.)

My mention of politics brings me to another point. Earlier, you wrote, "But as always Don , you take what is being said from one side of the arguement and not the questionable comments that perhaps you are more comfortable with in as far as political view ."

Please keep in mind that from the perspective of moderates and progressives, the views of the right are just as "questionable" as you believe their views to be. And that is why I will take issue with any comments made that lack supporting evidence. If you have followed my comments carefully, I have taken comments to task on both right and left if they lack support. If you want to persuade moderates and progressives that your views are less questionable than theirs, you have to give them evidence. It's not so much that my mind is made up, it's that I need to be convinced to change it. Many of the people who post here trying to change my mind are simply not giving me very convincing reasons to change it. (Repeating unsupported talking points or ad hominem attacks against politicians, etc., certainly won't be convincing.) And it also doesn't help when people react with a cry of "censorship of conservative views" when we tell you we aren't convinced. (I don't think you yourself have done that, but others have.)

Yes, I know I'm probably sounding like the rhetoric/composition teacher that I sometimes am. Forgive me if I sound preachy. But I hope these comments made some sense.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 25, 2008 8:31 AM

Yes thank you Don . I needed to hear that . No it was not lecturing . I still maintain the imbalance here , but my view is conservative in regards to many things . But have to say experience and life has taught me conservative policies sometimes just dont work either for the greater good . " Sorry President Reagan"

And yes Rick at times sounded like someone who I would enjoy being around and even supporting the things he promotes . Rick you once made a comment regarding when you are with the Lord in Spirit , everything else fades away . You wrote in a manner that captured my own experiences , and I wish I could be there more then I want to admit . But saying that , I knew you knew who I knew .

But then at times . arggggg .

Posted by: Michael | August 25, 2008 3:42 PM

Rick and Michael:

You're both welcome.

D

Posted by: Don | August 26, 2008 11:04 AM