I love my church, flaws and all. I currently attend a Reformed, Southern Baptist church full of white people, which is surprising considering my roots. I grew up in a very loud, very black stream of Pentecostalism. I have chosen to stay at my current church because I saw the sovereign care of God, taking a kid like me who was an altar call junkie, living from one emotional frenzy to the next, to someone who is no less emotional (I can still shout with the best of ‘em), but more firmly rooted in the unchanging truth of the Gospel. I also stayed because I wanted to stick around long enough to see God form a bunch of broken, imperfect people into a faith family.
Over the last year, our big, white church has been striving to more fully reflect the diversity of Columbus, Ohio and the Kingdom of God. In the first few years, we perpetuated the racial segregation that exists in so many churches across America. Then in just four short years, we became a church of 1,000 white people, and our gracious Lord has made some of us increasingly uncomfortable with that ever since. So now, our infant church is stumbling our way through trying to figure out what it looks like to be a Gospel-centered, multi-ethnic church in the city. Here are a few of the lessons we are learning along the way.
The “Man of Peace” Myth
One of the first things you’ll hear when you seek out advice on how to become a more racially-diverse church is the phrase “man of peace.” Essentially, a man of peace is someone (a minority, for example) within your church who gives off those “don’t let this sea of white people freak you out” kind of vibes to all visitors.
Starting with one person is good and necessary because racial diversity usually doesn’t happen all at once, but it’s a bit naive to believe that having one minority floating around your church is enough to disarm entire centuries of hostility. It’s not enough to post them up at the front door and hand out bulletins, or even give them five minutes of stage time to make a few announcements.
More than just having minorities, you may need to have minorities with decision-making authority. I know this may not be what you want to hear, but that means you may have to hire minorities for your staff and ordain minority elders and deacons. And none of that will happen unless you are committed to long-term, sustainable change.
Assimilation is NOT Reconciliation
Being one in Christ does not mean everyone needs to become just like us (i.e., black, white, Asian, etc.). Oneness does not mean sameness. Sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking that racial reconciliation simply means assimilating minority cultures into what we’re already doing. But assimilation falls short of reconciliation. In fact, assimilation can be just another form of oppression.
If we, as a church, fling open the doors and welcome everyone in, but stop short of examining our own biases and stop short of celebrating differences within others, then we aren’t really in the business of reconciliation. We’re silently saying to people of other races and cultures, “It’s cool for you to be here, but you have to talk like we talk, dress like we dress, and like the music we like.” Reconciliation demands not only that we embrace diversity, but that we practice diversity. That means critically examining some of our white-washed faith practices in the music, aesthetics, and even sermon content to see if we’re silently (or not so silently) exalting the social norms of one race or ethnicity at the expense of others.
Embrace Discomfort
Pursuing reconciliation is hard and it may take a very long time. But whenever you shake up something as homogenous as one-race churches, things are bound to get a little messy. For example, it might take your indie-rock worship band one, two, or twenty tries before their attempts at those Tye Tribbett songs to not sound like a train wreck. Sometimes it’s simply because people are so programmed to worship to one style of music that their cynicism won’t allow them to embrace something new. Whatever the reason for people’s discomfort, just embrace it.
Inevitably, someone will always be upset with what you’re doing. You’re either not doing it well enough, or not doing it often enough, or perhaps you shouldn’t be doing it at all. Use those opportunities to pastor one another and expose the idols that lay at the root of those criticisms. If you’re one of those angry-looking folk unwilling to accept diversity, just take those songs that you don’t like as a reminder that it’s not about you anyway.
Our faith family has a long way to go, but the Lord is faithful in building his church. Our hope and prayer continues to be that Jesus would be exalted across racial and cultural lines in Columbus.
What are some lessons your church is learning as you pursue racial reconciliation?
I was just sharing this with my wife, and she commented, “Oh, yeah. Pastor Jason is Hispanic. I forget.” Tell me. What is the goal in making churches more racially diverse? Is it making other races more comfortable? Is it catering to racial preferences? Or is it tearing down dividing walls? Is it becoming “one new man” (Eph. 2:11-22)? Do we want churches where everyone is of the same mind and consider all believers (regardless of race) to be their brothers and their sisters, or are we content with being multi-colored while maintaining “us and them” attitudes in the pews? Remember, what you win them with you will have to keep them with. If you lure people in with the impression that “your team” is represented here, you will have to maintain “our team / your team” attitudes in the pews. This does not bolster the gospel; this is contrary to the gospel.
The above comment was meant to be in reply to Tyshan below. Apologies.
I guess if you see it that way. I don’t and I think the author of the article does either. I just know as a person that worked in full time missions trying to reach people for Christ I had a really easy time and so did the other students I worked with reaching out to people from my cultural background. I also know once people from my cultural background had their hearts captured by Christ they had no problem being around believers that didn’t look like them. They didn’t need their cultural norms met. They just wanted to grow in Christ. Now this is fact not opinion. Christ is glorified and hearts do change because God is changing them. The problem is that their is such a deep racial divide on Sunday morning. Most churches don’t represent the community that are in. I’m pretty sure God is not pleased with the division and honestly it doesn’t represent the diversity of the body of Christ well at all. It doesn’t speak to any form of unity. So when you look at a church and see a lack of diversity some want to change that. I think that’s the heart of this article. The reason why their has to be strategy to multi ethnic churches (esp those churches that are in multi ethnic communities) Is because people don’t venture out their comfort zone often. I don’t think anyone is thinking team. It’s just differences need to be represented otherwise one is under the impression that everyone is assimilated. That’s a turn off.
Ah. I see. So, we’re not talking about reaching out to other Christians. We’re talking about evangelism. In other words, we are talking about reworking the way we think about ecclesiology in order to increase our evangelistic success as it regards race. We cater to racist attitudes in minorities in order to get them in the door, and once their hearts are changed, they will see the light on the whole race thing. Well then, why wouldn’t we take the same attitude toward racist whites? After all, once we get them in with a multiplicity of white leaders, the Holy Spirit will change their attitudes, right?
No. We don’t change the way we do church to help the gospel change hearts. The gospel will change hearts regardless. This is a Reformed website, right? We do church according to the Bible, not our demographic agendas.
I think you are missing it and unfortunately I can’t explain it through this blog. In order to save myself from being offended I’m going to bow out on this conversation.
Okay. Well, hopefully you and others see why I would find this article and your further explanation of these things to be highly offensive. I agree with your goal, but I fully disagree that your marching orders are the biblical way to achieve it. Pragmatic? Possibly. Biblical? Absolutely not.
1 Corinthians 9:22…motivation. I don’t know if you are but you really come across as close minded and it seems you have no idea what it is like to be minority. Jesus out here talking to the Samaritans and you out here bashing His approach. Your words hurt.
Right. Don’t engage my arguments. Just nullify them by assuming my background and experience and attacking my character.
By the way, 1Corinthians 9 is about giving up Christian liberties for the sake of weaker brothers such as what to eat, what to drink, getting paid for services rendered, etc. It’s not an evangelistic decree; it’s about body life. Moreover, it has nothing to do with essentially instituting Affirmative Action in the local church.
I apologize. Your words do hurt though really they do. It’s like you come with all these assumptions and then attack instead of having an open mind and seeing a different point of view. That makes it extremely hard to engage with you in discussion. I’m curious what is your solution for reaching every tribe, tongue and nation? How would you help churches in multi ethnic communities reflect their community? What ideas do you have for the body of Christ to keep Sunday morning from being the most segregated hour of the day? I think that May help me understand why you see things the way you do and why you think these suggestions are unbiblical
I’ve asked a lot of questions, actually, and if I’ve misinterpreted your answers I apologize. Sincerely, I do.
Regarding reaching every tribe, tongue, and nation, we should preach the gospel in the highways and byways without discrimination. Whites preaching the gospel to blacks. Blacks preaching the gospel to Asians. Hispanics preaching the gospel to Native Americans, etc. That is taking the goal of what we’d like to see in the church and bleeding it into our evangelistic efforts. Paul didn’t go and get Gentiles to preach for him to other Gentiles. He, a Jew, preached the gospel to the Gentiles and with much success. I think we would also do ourselves and our God a great service to stop looking at Sunday morning services as evangelism-centric. We come together on the Lord’s Day to worship Him and put Him at the center. Sunday is a day to be refreshed and renewed, to serve and be served. Sunday is for equipping the saints for the work of ministry. Monday through Saturday is when we go out into the mission field to seek and save the lost. I will answer you other questions at my lunch break. My morning break is over, though. God bless.
Regarding the concept of helping churches look more like their communities, I would like to see a biblical basis for this argument. I do agree that it should be the goal, but its accomplishment is the Lord’s, wouldn’t you agree? So, if entire segments of a community are unwilling to hear the gospel or they are more enamored by the church down the street that is predominantly made up of their subculture, I don’t think the church who has relentlessly put efforts for to reach them with the gospel and extend the hand of fellowship to them should beat itself up. The question really is, “Is the church doing what the church is called to do in Scripture?” See, we agree on many of the premises of this issue, but when we start to impose our applications on one another, we run into a host of other problems:
1) Legalism. If the Scripture isn’t explicit about it, we shouldn’t impose it on one another.
2) Prejudice. If a church isn’t as diverse as its surrounding community, we should not assume that it has sinfully neglected the issue before weighing all other factors (in the church and in the community).
3) Insinuations of heterodoxy. If multi-culturalism and all of its marching orders are part and parcel of the gospel, then all those who don’t tow the line are heretics, denying the gospel.
4) Usurping the role of the Spirit. The job of ordaining men for ministry, from a Baptist perspective, belongs to the congregation. The reason it is left to the congregation is because it is understood that the congregation is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As such, God has chosen to rule and direct His church through the congregation. To bypass the will of the congregation to implement these race-based policies is to usurp the role of the Holy Spirit. Reformed Baptist churches (1689 LBC) in particular will, and should, always resist such a move.
Okay I have some clarity on where you are coming from. So do you feel articles like these are unnecessary? Do you think that ministry shouldnt have a strategy to reach other people groups. Do you feel the church should be focused on other things. Im very missions minded. I started a campus ministry when I was a student, I became a missionary straight out of college and I still serve part time now so articles like these excite me. Do you feel that Im unBiblical for that?
Regarding the prevention of segregation in the church service, the Bible provides us with plenty of direction in the form of the ordinary means of grace:
1) Reading the Word. When we read systematically and corporately through the word of God, we see the stress that the Bible puts on human value and equality, as well as the many other doctrines and practices that are stressed in its pages (added bonus: no personal agendas, just the pure unadulterated word of God).
2) Preaching the Word. When we gather to hear the word systematically read and explained, we receive the same benefit as above. The preacher also has the opportunity to make specific application for the church and community as a whole, including issues of racial reconciliation.
3) Prayer. When we pray together corporately, we can cover a litany of concerns for the church and the community. It is also a time where men, women, and children of all races and ethnicities are free to communion with God and with one another. The church is hardly exercising its role as the church at any more time than when it prays together.
4) Singing of Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs. I could write a book on how this time could be used to promote pan-cultural unity. Suffice it to say that this is a time when the body really gets to be the body and exercise her gifts in worship and communion together.
5) The Ordinances. We often forget that baptism and the Lord’s supper are corporate events. We ought not to allow ourselves to over personalize these gifts from God. They are corporate graces, and thus can be used creatively to promote unity across racial borders.
I will not here propose specific ways to accomplish this goal we seek to accomplish, because every church is different. What I will argue is that we need to have grace when we look in on churches from the outside. Skin color won’t tell us how many steps a church has made toward promoting pan-racial unity. Skin color won’t tell us what recent events may be demanding the church’s focus at this time (a scandal, a divorce, a church split, a death, a pastor who simply up-and-left, etc.). We need to be merciful when speaking of these things, and we need to be expectant that the Lord will work in His church through the means He has ordained for her good.
I wouldn’t say articles like these are unnecessary. I would go further than that and call them harmful. Why? For all the reasons I’ve already listed. You ask me about your experience. I can’t speak to your experience, but that’s just the issue. Outside of the Bible’s prescribed counsel for how we are to conduct ourselves, we do have a tremendous amount of freedom. I wouldn’t say your view is unbiblical for your church, because I don’t know all the unique circumstances that surround it. What I have said is unbiblical is to talk about such applications as though they are to be universally applied. Couple that with the claim that these practices are intrinsically intertwined with the gospel and you come dangerously close to legalistically binding the consciences of entire faith communities.
Understand that I don’t disagree with the goal, and there may be a few churches with large budgets and freedom to hire a large staff that can make these changes without usurping the authority of the Spirit as exercised through the congregation. That’s great! I go to a small church where there a few of us “white” guys who believe God has given us a desire for ministry. None of our minority-subculture members have expressed a desire for pastoral ministry. So, as you can see it is not a very feasible for my church. Most Reformed Baptist churches are fairly intentional about raising up pastors from within rather than seeking them from without. I suppose they could be more intentional about asking their minority-subculture members to consider ministry, but then again we would be singling them out according to race. How could that not be perceived as flattery?
“Regarding the concept of helping churches look more like their communities, I would like to see a biblical basis for this argument. I do agree that it should be the goal, but its accomplishment is the Lord’s, wouldn’t you agree?”
I don’t understand what you said here. Do you mean that there are no Biblical arguments that support helping churches look more like their communities? If so, why should it be a goal?
In Jemar Tisby’s article “The Joyful Pursuit Of Multi-ethnic Churches (http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-joyful-pursuit-of-multi-ethnic-churches/) he writes:
“2. Your church becomes a safe haven for lots of different people.
Regardless of one’s ethnicity, everyone wants to worship in a place that feels “safe.” As an African American who longs for biblical teaching and preaching I do not feel at home in church that has erroneous theology but is more culturally familiar. Nor do I feel comfortable in a church with sound theology but is culturally distant. A multi-ethnic church becomes a place where I can get both sound doctrine and an accessible cultural experience. What is true along racial lines is also true along economic, linguistic, and other lines. Multi-ethnic churches communicate that it’s all right to be different, and then lots of different people start coming.”
It can be very difficult for African-Americans, Caucasians, Asians, Indians, etc. to attend a church that is “culturally distant.” Ethnic culture is important, for in Colossians 4 Paul mentions that Mark and Justus are the “only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God” and they “have been a comfort to me.” Now, just because a church is ethnically-homogenous doesn’t necessarily mean that it is culturally distant from other cultures, but in my experience they often are. Shane Huey, the author of this article, lives in Columbus, OH which, according to the 2010 census is 61.5% White and 28.0% African-American. It seems his article is about pursuing ethnic reconciliation so that those who are minorities in his church and those that The Lord will save from the surrounding community will not feel culturally distant but feel accepted by their brothers and sisters in church. In a different context, say and area that is 85% White and 2% African-American the same pursuit of ethnic reconciliation may not take the same form but people of all ethnicities should feel that they are welcome by others in the church.
No. That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that churches will arrive at how to look more like their communities differently, and most will never fully succeed. It is an admirable goal, but no matter how hard a church strives at it, their success is up to the Lord. Thus, it is impossible to do a scan of the congregation and determine that they haven’t tried or have erred in their efforts simply because of the ethnicities represented. Furthermore, what I’ve argued is that, apart from preaching the gospel and observing the ordinary means of grace, the Bible gives us no universal strategies (like the ones outlined in the article) for how to accomplish this goal. Therefore, churches need to have grace toward other churches that don’t do it the way that they do.
I think that Shane is arguing against universal strategies. He says “So now, our infant church is stumbling our way through trying to figure out what it looks like to be a Gospel-centered, multi-ethnic church in the city.” So he notes that his church is “stumbling.” Then he discusses “The “Man of Peace” Myth” and that “Assimilation is NOT Reconciliation” in that these are things that many people assume that churches should do to support reconciliation but in fact do not work.
He does make quite a few universal truth claims, though, that I don’t see as being backed up in Scripture, such as the hiring / ordaining practices he proposes.To be honest, the Assimilation Is NOT Reconciliation argument is also somewhat troubling in my view. Reconciliation assumes sin. Where in the Bible do we see talk of reconciliation apart from sin? If one party has sinned in the question of race, the default assumption seems to be (in the multi-culturalist crowd) that it is the church that has sinned and must repent, not the new member. The church must bow to the felt-needs of the new member.
This is a dangerous way to view body life. Change happens in churches through the individual contributions of each member, but that takes time and patience. I don’t see how the language I’ve read from the multi-culturalist movement encourages that patience. I’ve seen a lot of changes come about in my church due to the patient plodding of the members, bearing with one another in love and exhibiting mercy toward one another in our weaknesses.
I’ve also seen people leave and even split churches over issues that may have ultimately been resolved but were not being resolved fast enough for their liking. When we force changes like this in churches rather than taking the church as it is, being patient, and waiting on the Spirit, we can cause great division and disunity. I don’t want uniformity either, but I will not fight uniformity at the cost of unity. We must be mindful that their are militant, divisive types out there that will not bear with the foibles of a faith community and will use articles like this to blow up a church (figuratively speaking).
Assimilation doesn’t mean uniformity. What it means is that you commit to look more like the church and, over time, through regular body life and the work of the Spirit, they will start to look more like you in some ways. Each part of the body contributes something unique, but with the introduction of each new member the body doesn’t have to undergo a fundamental transformation.
The one thing I think you dont see and I wonder if you will ever see is that when it comes to race relations in America it is horrific. When you are trying to have a multicultural church people have so much mistrust and hurt that reconciliation must happen. Personally I have experienced so much hurt from my brothers and sisters in the faith of a lighter hue that I would need several persons of peace in a congregation before I considered joining a multicultural or majority culture church. Its not the church that is at fault its just that there is so much mistrust between races that reconciliation needs to take place for growth. I think that’s dead on Biblical especially when you look at the mistrust between Jews and Gentiles when the church first started but hey Im just a minority living this thing. I still have my Biblical world view that wont ever change and Im making it fit our societal reality today. I know thats what you are missing when you make your comments because honestly you are so black and white on issues that are actually pretty gray because we are dealing with sinful broken people in desperate need of a Savior. Now you may think that is too much for a church to do. That its unnecessary and cause division but I have lived the contrary. These things are why major missions organizations like Cru have had to apologize for their lack of care and change toward minority groups. To each his or her own but I think God is pleased with both because the fruit is that disciples are being made.
I have neither been asked about my understanding and background regarding race relations in America, nor have I offered that information about myself. Your assumption about me is merely that. I agree that race relations in America have been horrific. I agree that these factors must be taken into consideration for ministry. What I disagree about is the idea that we must fundamentally change the way we understand what the Bible says about church polity and church order in order to achieve that. I will not be swayed from my biblical and theological convictions about church polity and church order on the basis of experiential and pragmatic arguments. My conscience is bound to Scripture. Show me in Scripture and I will be convinced.
You say that reconciliation must happen because of the mistrust and hurt that many have experienced. I agree, but it is a cultural reconciliation, not an ecclesiastical one. Reconciliation is a reciprocal transaction. It involves two parties: an offender and the offended. It requires two actions: repentance and forgiveness. Now, in this cultural situation, there are offenders and offended parties. The offended parties are those who have experienced discrimination and worse on the basis of race and ethnicity. The offenders are those who have sinned in committing racism toward the offended parties.
Where I am having trouble connecting is when people say that reconciliation must take place within local churches. I agree that, if churches have racist policies or racist individuals within them, this must be dealt with. Repentance and forgiveness (reconciliation) must take place in this situation. However, the mere presence of a majority of whites in a church does not signify a lack of racial reconciliation. Where’s the sin? Where’s the offense? Is it in the skin itself?
Reconciliation is a harmful word to be using in this instance, because it assumes offense where in a great many cases there is none. Reconciliation needs to take place, yes, and the church may yet have a large part in bringing it about, but it needs to take place primarily in the culture and in the hearts and minds of individuals. Where it is obvious that some person or some church is an offender, that person or church must be confronted. Where it is obvious that a person has been offended, that person needs to be counseled and guided through a process of forgiveness with a desire, ultimately, for reconciliation. However, let’s not assume based on a congregation’s skin color that they are offenders, because that’s what we are saying when we place the obligation of reconciliation squarely on the shoulders of the local church.
Regarding the accusation that I’m seeing these things as too black and white, I would direct you to the last several comments I’ve made. I have made it clear that one of my major concerns with articles like this one is that they state their strategies in too black and white of terms. They assume that these strategies should be applied universally in churches. This is dangerous. While they may be right for some churches (I can’t say), they would be simply devastating in many churches.
Wikipedia says of cultural assimilation:
“… Full assimilation occurs when new members of a society become indistinguishable from members of the other group.”
And, concerning assimilation of immigrants in the United States:
“… Immigrant assimilation is a complex process in which immigrants not only fully integrate themselves into a new country, but also lose aspects, perhaps all of their heritage too.”
I think what Shane is saying is that if, by force, the majority ethnic group in a church promotes the concept that the minority ethnic group should become “indistinguishable” and promotes that they should lose perhaps all of their heritage that these things should be rejected.
When I read the article I assumed that Shane and others in his church were being sinned against by the majority ethnic group, so that is why is he talking about reconciliation. He also says “pursuing reconciliation is hard and it may take a very long time,” so it seems that he is supporting patience. I don’t see where in the article he is calling for all churches that are not pursuing a city-level reconciliation program with all minority ethnic groups to do so now. He is just talking about what is happening in his church.
This isnt my first time having a discussion with you so I have heard your background. You told me on another article. Plus I have checked out things you have posted in the past. Im not making blatant assumptions.
Then you know everything there is to know about me and my exposure to this topic..
If I were using Wikipedia’s definition, I would have an issue with assimilation in the church, too. I guess I would be more in line with the definitions given at Dictionary.com:
“the process of adapting or adjusting to the culture of a group or nation, or the state of being so adapted:
‘assimilation of immigrants into American life.'”
or at Merriam-Webster.com:
“to adopt the ways of another culture : to fully become part of a different society, country, etc.”
When I came to my church, they didn’t sing from a hymnal, have pews, have a piano or an organ, or pass the plate, all of which I was accustomed to. We’ve evolved on passing the plate, but little else. I don’t rock the boat or claim that they are trying to assimilate me. At the same time, I am still who I am with the same preferences, but I let those go for the sake of unity. Over time, God may use to change certain practices in my church, and He may not, but that does not require tampering with the structure of the church to help me get my way. It involves me submitting to the corporate will while retaining my preferences. It requires humility and waiting on God without presumption.
Regarding the idea that Shane was only talking about his church, I didn’t read that in the article, and I haven’t seen where others in the comment section have thought that, either.
Nothing I’ve said about my past exposure to this topic on this site would support the accusations of ignorance you’ve made against me.
Honestly its based on the comments you have made on this post. Sorry to offend. It just seems that way from you comments.
But we are talking about what Shane means by his statement “Assimilation is NOT Reconciliation” in his article. You may be using a different definition, but the one from Wikipedia seems to be more in line with what he is thinking, for he writes:
“Oneness does not mean sameness. Sometimes we fall into the trap of thinking that racial reconciliation simply means assimilating minority cultures into what we’re already doing.”
The above seems to be talking about things in the majority ethnic or social culture in a church that are part of that culture and not Biblical instituted. He also says:
“It’s cool for you to be here, but you have to talk like we talk, dress like we dress, and like the music we like.”
What if, after you had been at your current church for about 5 months, you approached a couple of the elders and explain that you really enjoy singing from a hymnal and was wondering if that could be incorporated into your worship times. One of the elders tells you “that’s not how we worship around here,” and the other “while we respect our heritage, we are not stuck in the 16th century, but you can go to church X were there are others like you.” What would you think about they and others in the church feel about your culture?
I’ve actually had that conversation, and it went pretty much like you said. However, I love my church, and I don’t want to be a source of division, so I’ve decided just to drop it. I still get annoyed when the sound guys forget to switch the powerpoint between verses or when the powerpoint freezes up or when I think, “Man! Perhaps more people would sing if they had sheet music to follow as well as these words.” But you know what? I’m not the only person at my church. I have to put up with things that aren’t to my liking. That’s what it means to be a part of a family.
I could pose a similar question back to you, though. What if you were an elder at a 95% black church in an 85% black community, and one of your two white members approached you and said that he wanted to hire a white guy to appeal to the white minority in the community and perhaps sing a few Gather songs during the service? I wouldn’t hold it against that black elder if he was concerned that this white guy might eventually be a source of division or some other controversy in the church.
I wouldn’t hold it against an African-American elder either but if his community was 60% Caucasian and his church was 20% Caucasian I think that I would have a different opinion. I am not sure about the hiring part, (I don’t think that anyone should be promoted as an elder or for another position in a church because of their ethnicity but is there no one among the 20% that is qualified for leadership or another position? Maybe, maybe not) but is the elder dismissing the Gather songs just because they are from the Caucasian minority without Biblical reasons for doing so? This would cause me to have some concern. What I mean is a harsh, flippant dismissal of another ethnic culture, with a refusal to even pray or consider what a person/people in an ethnic minority are asking for/have concerns about. This is versus a loving explanation of why things are done the way they are in a particular church. This harsh treatment doesn’t have to be among ethnic minorities. It can be between Caucasians and Caucasians, African-Americans and African-Americans, Asians and Asians, etc. which I think is unbiblical.
I mentioned that Shane’s church is in an area that is 61.5% White and 28.0% African-American so I think that there is warrant in what his church is trying to do to show acceptance to the African-American minority in his area, some of which churches in other similar areas can apply. I also mentioned that in a different context where a church is in an area that is 85% White and 2% African-American that the pursuit of ethnic reconciliation may not take the same form but people of all ethnicities should feel that they are welcome by others in the church.
Thank you for your response. It was very thoughtful. There is very little with which I would disagree. Ultimately, I would simply reiterate, as I gather you agree, that it really is about the unique situation at each local church and we need to be slow about judging churches based on their color and assuming what efforts they have or have not taken… or assuming what biblical reasoning they have or have not employed.
Platitudes. Ships passing in the night. Is anyone interested in genuine dialogue on these things, or just monologuing? Heart-change happens through dialogue. If we can’t respect each another enough to respond to one another’s disagreements, we will get nowhere in this conversation. Some of the most major changes I’ve seen in my own life on the issue of race relations has been as a result of people telling me, “You’re wrong, and here’s why…” I desire that kind of dialogue and I assume many of you do too, or I wouldn’t be commenting on these posts.
Leadership is key to the change. If they are not willing to listen and learn from minorities the majority culture will make cosmetic changes (music) bit no deep heart changes.
Theological and ministry training. The leader needs to understand that their training is not neutral. Ministry training for most consevatives is by solid teachers from middle, upper middle class context with textbooks amd examples from european theologians. This traning is good but it does not prepare individuals to minister in any and every context.
” If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me.” Philemon 1:17. If this appeal from Paul were to have taken place 400, 150 or 60 years ago do you think we would have seen more diversity now?
As a Baptist, what is your understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit working through the congregation to raise up men such as elders and deacons in the church? What about His role in shaping and reshaping the local church?
My wife is a country, white girl from Texas. That has nothing to do with racial preference. I would have married her whether she were white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or otherwise. I married her for who she is, not for her skin color. However, I’ve noticed that none of my black, Hispanic, or Asian friends have any issue with spending days on end in our home (kids running rough-shod everywhere), simply because I don’t have a minority in a “decision-making” position in my home. To the best of my knowledge, they don’t assume that racism was involved in my courtship and marriage. Nor do I assume that racism was involved when I see that my black friend married a black woman, etc.
I’m a white seminary student at a church with a plurality of elders. We have two elders currently: one white and one Hispanic. We’re a fairly diverse church. Now, the Hispanic elder may be leaving us for a year fairly soon to seek medical treatment across the country for one of his children. If that happens, should we seek a minority from outside our church to fill this decision-making role? Should we expect that, if we weren’t to do so, many of the minorities in our church might leave? What if it’s the Lord’s will that I be raised up, or some other white guy? I simply don’t see how this type of race-centric tinkering is warranted within the household of God.
When you are trying to have diversity race/culture has to be taken into account. Trust me. In your churches case people arent going to leave because the Hispanic elder had to take medical leave but it might effect new minorities coming and joining the church. As a minority that has done ministry specifically for minority students on campuses I know for a fact race matters. It makes a huge difference in diversifying churches and reaching different people groups for Christ. I think you are missing the point of this article which I think is very well written and when followed will help greatly in diversifying churches across the nation.
I am willing to hear how I might have missed the main point of the article.
In the meantime, regarding my particular situation (and my church’s situation), are you saying that my church should bypass raising up men (there are several other “white” men in my small church with aspirations for ministry) who the Holy Spirit might otherwise lead us to raise up in order to hire a minority-subculture pastoral candidate from the outside in order to cater to an element in the community that might otherwise misread the work of the Spirit through the congregation as racist? I hope you can see why I would be conflicted by such a notion.
Im definitely not saying that. I dont think the article is saying that necessarily as well. I think this is more towards churches that are intentionally trying to pursue a diverse church and in some cases churches will have to go outside the congregation to make that happen. I know if my little church in the hood ever tried to add diversity to the leadership it would have to reach out to others outside our 4 walls. If the Holy Spirit is raising up leaders inside the church then go with that, but if your church is intentionally trying to diversify then you would have to go outside the 4 walls in addition to raising up leaders inside the church. No one is trying to go against God on this. We ultimately do what the Holy Spirit says because we seek obedience before anything else.