Is Sunday Morning the Most Segregated Time in America? If so . . . Why?

# on 15 Sep 2008
Uncategorized

Comments (43)

Related Posts

• Judge not! What does that mean?
• Why Even Bother Going to Church?
• Compromise is not a Four-Letter Word
• Church and Bad Hair
• Grace At Kanakuk

43 Responses to “Is Sunday Morning the Most Segregated Time in America? If so . . . Why?”

1. Lisa R on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:05 pm #

   Man have I had a bug up my butt regarding this issue especially since I moved to Dallas. (see here http://worshipwhileitswarm.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2008/08/10/one-in-christ-a-plea-for-diversity/). I would attribute the problem to #2 and #3, which can be summed up in one word “Self”.

   We worship and fellowship based on what is pleasing to self. So we look for people that we are comfortable with, that play music we’re comfortable with and whose worship styles mimic our own. Because maybe if we’re real honest, we don’t want to be uncomfortable or to have anything interfere with our worship

   But as part of the body of Christ, I think the burden is to come out of our comfort zone and maybe make a concerted effort to fellowship with folks of other races. Because “in Him” we are other centered, or supposed to be anyway. And I don’t believe that this type of segregation accurately reflects the body we are supposed to represent that puts love for one another about any racial lines and worship styles.

   I also think that you’ll have diversity to the extent that it is promoted from leadership. That’s why Paul Shephard’s church in CA, Abundant Life, has such a diverse crowd in the thousands. He promotes it. He finds racial segregation unacceptable. He does not utilize a homiletic that would exclude people from other races.

2. C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:11 pm #

   Thanks Lisa. That is very interesting and insightful.

   What did you mean by this: “He does not utilize a homiletic that would exclude people from other races.”

   What does that look like and why do homiletic syles tend to contribute to segregation?

3. Lisa R on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:25 pm #

   Why do homiletic styles contribute to segregation? For example, the black preacher that delivers a sermon in a style and with verbiage that are germane to black culture might be perceived as hostility or anger to whites, or persons of other races. A person not of that race, might feel excluded because the message is being delivered in a way they don’t quite get and are not comfortable with. And this can be indicative of any race, not just African-americans.

4. C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:27 pm #

   How does Paul Shephard integrate styles?

5. Lisa R on 15 Sep 2008 at 7:44 pm #

   Not sure exactly, especially about the music. But if its anything like one of my former churches that put a strong emphasis on diversity, it’s blending a variety of styles. So we (I was on the worship team) could play songs by Kirk Franklin, Fred Hammond, Paul Baloche, Delirious and Hillsong. I have heard many of his messages though and In terms of preaching, Paul Shepherd is clearly African-American and does not try to wash his style of speaking but neither does he lean so far to one side, that folks from other races might have a problem with it. Or at least his style. I’ve read in an interview somewhere that it is intentional on his part.

6. B. Minich on 15 Sep 2008 at 8:46 pm #

   I’ve thought about this as well. I wonder if this is also a product of our church sampling culture. Basically, if a church doesn’t “work out”, we either move on to a different church with beliefs that agree with ours, or we start new churches. This tends to divide, not unify, and I wouldn’t be surprised that if, without realizing it, we slowly drift apart as races and ethnicities. Not sure what to DO about this tendency, but I wonder if that doesn’t have something to do with this.

7. djohn on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:17 pm #

   You’ve touched on it in items 2 and 3. Lisa, brings out “self” and B.Minch points out “church sampling”. I will add how the church body recieves someone of a different ethnicity. Does the church give you that “warm & fuzzy” welcome when you attend? How do or did any of you feel when you visited and you were the minority? If you had a positive experience the 1st or 2nd time was it enough that would warrant you comming back and joining that church body?

   “I was walking through the halls of my church yesterday and noticed that there were two black people. This caught my attention and, in a very real sense, I was ashamed. Why? Because it caught my attention”

   We all should be ashamed! The sad part is we seem to dismiss it because of our own deep seated feelings that we don’t want to surface. Where’s the Love of Christ? Are our churches doing enough to make the minority want to come back?

8. Lisa R on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:33 pm #

   “Where’s the Love of Christ? Are our churches doing enough to make the minority want to come back?”

   Djohn, when you say minority do you mean one who is labeled an ethnic minority or a person whose race/ethnic background is in the minority relative to the church congregation?

   What’s interesting is that the church I have been frequenting recently, has exuded “welcome” through several of its members. It is predominantly white. Not to long ago, I visited an African-american church and did not feel genuine warmth. And I’m one of them!!! Go figure.

   But I say that to say that you are correct, the love of Christ that lives in us should compel us to welcome folks, even if they don’t look like us.

9. djohn on 15 Sep 2008 at 9:38 pm #

   “when you say minority do you mean one who is labeled an ethnic minority or a person whose race/ethnic background is in the minority relative to the church congregation? ”

   Minority- one whose race/ethnic background is in the minority relative to the church congregation.

   I think we should be examining this from both sides of the fence.

10. C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2008 at 10:01 pm #

    “both sides of the fence…”

    Yes, we all need to. I am beginning to consider this to be one of the most important issues in the church. I don’t know, however, the historical issues, but I imagine that we would see much of the same.

    It is interesting to consider the movements of the emerging church and its similarity to other evangelical churches with regard to this issue. It is one of the major weaknesses of the emerging church “revival.” They can recognize the need for whole foods, but don’t do anything about segregation. Ok, don’t get me started on imbalanced priorities (especially my own!)

11. Curt Chadwick on 15 Sep 2008 at 11:59 pm #

    As we are looking to relocate to Atlanta, we have found churches some would label as “emergent” are planting in the traditionally black part of town. Its encouraging to me to see believers forsake the comfortable life in the suburbs and intentionally do life and ministry in the the poorer, predominantly black neighborhoods.

    This is a problem in the church and like many of the problems the church has it starts with me…im not comfortable with others that are not like me whether it be race, age, non-essentials beliefs, etc. I think its incumbent upon myself to step out of my comfort zone and meet at the foot of the cross.

12. Leslie on 16 Sep 2008 at 12:07 am #

    While it is race in the States, it is casteism in India. Caste is basically an offshoot of Hinduism’s belief in re-incarnation. And it was categorized based each clan’s occupation. Though India has grown economically and socially, the caste feelings are still around. Even Christians hold on to it. In fact, I heard of a certain church in my city where a ceratin caste group would worship from 8 to 9, and from 9 to 10 another group would go in to worship. Casteism is such a menace among Christians in India. All the talk on equality in Christ is jus that, talk!

13. Anselm on 16 Sep 2008 at 6:13 am #

    This is a tough issue and I have read a lot about it. But after having put some thought to to it I must demur from what I believe has become the popular spiritual myth about trying to be multi-cultural. I would argue there is no such thing as a multi-cultural congregation. The catholic church is multi-cultural and always has been and always will be. (And always should be) But an individual congregation can never be all things to all people. By the very nature of including of others is by nature an exclusion of yet others. Instead of looking at this as a race issue (which is only partially true) look at this as a language issue. What point is there in attending a congregation where you don’t understand the words being spoken? I would argue that a “multi-cultural” church is really a “racial-diverse” yet single cultural church and like any other church many people would be uncomfortable going there, not because they are racist, but because it is something that doesn’t speak their language. (Multi-racial…good, multi-cultural….not possible)

    Take music for example how do you have a multi-cultural service without doing a mix of music? In this case some songs you will find appealing and will help strengthen your walk while others will make you want to cover your ears and hide under a pew. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with language. Traditional vs. Contemporary, Country vs. Alternative vs Hip Hop etc. In a service that mixes languages the message gets watered down and the church becomes less and less effective in teaching a clear message. Because now only half or a fourth of the time does it make sense to a particular audience.

    Sure some people like the mix and want the mix…Great! That is a valid language itself. But some don’t and that is ok too.

    A congregation should choose a demographic and hit it. Anyone should be welcome but not every language is going to be spoken in that congregation and that is ok. That is why there is the catholic church. We have to stop seeing our congregation as “the church” and start understanding the Church is greater and larger than our two doors. In the same way we may have a class for teenagers and another class for young marrieds. So to the church.

14. Jim on 16 Sep 2008 at 7:10 am #

    I came down to Dallas from Canada a few years back, and attended a large church in the area. I wasn’t even thinking about this issue, but started looking around and — it was obvious enough to shock me into noticing.

    White, middle class – the vast, vast majority. Less than 1% appeared to be anything else.

    (Disclaimer: This is not a “pro-Canada” post… Canada has its own problems…)

    I don’t want to jump right in and say this is all bad. I tended to think it’s a cultural thing. We tend to be better at reaching people like ourselves. Not that we should ever limit ourselves to reaching those of our same economic level or culture or race! (God forbid)

    Of course the Church is diverse and we must demonstrate that to the world. But does that mean we’re worshipping from 11am-12am with a diverse group? Or does it mean that we work with diverse groups in other ways at other times, and maybe worship together at other times in other ways?

    I’m not sure why I’m trying to defend the homogeneous local church. I’m just not ready to say it’s all “selfishness”.

    But then again, I can’t claim that selfishness isn’t a huge problem in the church, whether it keeps us away from brothers and sisters of a different culture or race or social level, or whether it shows itself in other ways!

15. Ralph on 16 Sep 2008 at 8:39 am #

    I too have spent much time on this subject. We are not as diverse as I would like us to be. But in all fairness to us, I have preached against the sin of racism and the lie that that there are any other races but the human race. But that has not been enough. I believe we are also in a very white and Spanish area, and we do represent our area well. But if you went by skin color, we would not appear to be even that diverse. If sin is not the issue I think culture and style are the biggest issues that divide us today

    Ralph

16. jamie steele on 16 Sep 2008 at 8:48 am #

    I think it largely has to do with worship style and fellowship. How many white folk to you see at Creflo or TD Jakes church? They run in the 10’s of thousands. I have been to Andy Stanley’s church and his is whiter than snow.
    I am sure all these churches reach out to other ethnic groups.
    Just because a church is predominately white or black or Hispanic for that matter doesn’t mean they are racist.
    In our county we invite everyone, but we are predominately a white church.
    We have very strong African American churches in our county. We also so have some very strong and growing Hispanic churches.
    There are not too many Hispanics in our community who would rather worship they way we do– how do I know– I asked them… They had rather worship with and like other Hispanics. Are they racist? Is my church racist? I don’t think so.

    I asked myself if I had the choice would I rather hear TD Jakes preach and be a part of his church or go hear Tommy Nelson preach and be a part of his church.
    I had much rather hear Tommy Nelson. Does this make me a racist? NO!

17. Mike on 16 Sep 2008 at 9:14 am #

    I was a pastor in Long Beach, Calif. The congregation was basically white, and the Sunday School predominately black. We tried a merge with a black church down the street. We started with the music. Their singers joined ours. Our organist, with there pianist. The organist had no rhythm, the pianist “swang.” Their singers danced down the isle in robes, ours had no “moves.” Their singers sang in a key that the director started singing in, and the pianist followed in that key. Our musicians read music and stayed in a key, and sang in that key every time.

    The merge only lasted about a month. The black congregation went back to their church.

    I would like to see more diversity, but one group must compromise their likes and dislikes somewhat.

18. Jugulum on 16 Sep 2008 at 10:16 am #

    Churches of predominantly one ethnicity? Like, say, a Dutch Reformed church?

    Jamie is right that it is not necessarily about racism. Not about physical racism. Rather, we want to worship with those who are like us culturally. Or in other words, ethnically, in the sense that a black man raised in France is French. A hispanic man raised in the “white” Midwest will probably want to worship in “white” churches, and a white man raised in “black” culture will probably want to worship in “black” churches. It doesn’t have to be because we dislike people who are different–we just like people who are culturally similar. I’m glad if it’s not because of racist dislike.

    But the Gospel isn’t shown by people who are the same joining together. It is shown in the unity of the Body of Christ between people who are different. It is shown in love across boundaries.

    So, it’s not necessarily sin when a church is primarily one ethnicity. But if it’s the predominant situation in America, then it does show that the Body of Christ in America is sick. Ill. And it’s something to work against, where we can.

19. Dave Z on 16 Sep 2008 at 10:33 am #

    I think culture plays a big role. There is a distinct style difference between cultures. It’s ironic how we have been taught to value diversity, but to mourn the natural tendency of folks to identify with their particular culture. It’s like “Celebrate your heritage and culture, but then come blend in with mine.”

    We have a few black families in our mostly white church (and community) as well as some asians and hispanics, and it’s all one big happy family.

    My parents attend a large inner-city church in Pittsburgh. Decades ago, it was a very white church in an old community that was rapidly changing. The former residents (mostly white) headed to the suburbs (but drove in for church) and the new residents were almost exclusively black and poor. Businesses moved out and crime and drug use became real problems.

    Some years ago, a new (white) pastor came in and made a commitment to grow a church that reflected the community. One of his first actions was to hire a black music director. Believe me, some of the old guard was none too happy about it. The pastor also moved his young family into the community and encouraged his staff to do the same.

    It took several years to overcome the church’s reputation in the community, but today it’s the most ethnically balanced congregation I’ve ever seen. Awesome place to worship. And growing like crazy. But from the beginning there was an effort to nurture a cultural environment in which the community would feel comfortable. And valued.

    That’s great , but should we, at the same time, condemn folks in a given culture for tending to congregate together? Isn’t that pretty natural?

20. Michael on 16 Sep 2008 at 11:44 am #

    I have to also add my “two cents” and state that racial diversity in the church is neither an end in itself, nor would I find it something necessarily to be desired. As many have pointed out, this is largely an issue of language, culture, and preferences in style of music and worship. We are all one family, that is VERY true. However, let’s consider our own families for a moment. Most of us tend to gravitate towards a brother, sister, aunt, or uncle. They are all family, but we just tend to be more compatible with some members of our families than others. That is fine, and it doesn’t make all of us “less” family.

    There are MANY more important things to be addressing than racial diversity in our church pews. Let’s correct the problem that the vast majority of churches have first….too many babies in the pews. We need to take our seeking after God’s word a LOT more seriously than we do, and become literate in our own beliefs. This notion of coming each Sunday to “be fed” is way too rampant. Not because that is wrong in and of itself, but because few in the congregation feed themselves during the week…in fact, they are quite reticent to even learn how (that might take effort).

    Sorry…too much caffeine apparently

21. Vance on 16 Sep 2008 at 1:04 pm #

    “colors don’t bleed into one”

    I got that one. :0) I guess when it comes to full grace and fellowship, we still haven’t found what we’re looking for.

22. Talacker29 on 16 Sep 2008 at 1:23 pm #

    I concur with Michael. Just because there is an identifiable trend or occurence and that it is one that goes against the fallacy of “political correctness”, let’s not necessarily assume there is a problem.

    If we’ve purged racism and are welcoming of all into our individual congregations, then I believe we’ve done what is necessary. People make their own choices where to worship. Being ashamed of the choices of others is not something you should feel. Nor should the goal of the church to match its attendence with the racial/ethnic makeup of the community.

23. Jugulum on 16 Sep 2008 at 1:51 pm #

    Hmm… As a thought experiment, try to imagine what Paul would say.

    Imagine that the church in Corinth was meeting in various smaller house gatherings… And there was virtually no mixing between Jewish brothers & sisters and Gentile brothers & sisters.

    Do you think he would have anything to say about it? Even if he wouldn’t say, “You are sinning,” would he have anything to say about it in terms of Christian unity?

    I have a hard time believing that he would say, “That’s a natural manifestation of the perfectly acceptable tendency to group with people who are more compatible.”

24. Michael on 16 Sep 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    Hmm…not sure I could agree with you on that one Jugulum. The church at Corinth very likely met in several peoples homes….in other words it probably did NOT meet each week (and/or during the week as well) in a large centralized building…and certainly not the local Jewish synagogue (which would naturally be antagonistic to the budding Christian religion). The concept of church being held in a “church building” (at least as far as the Christian church is concerned) did not become the norm until the 3rd century.

    In Paul’s day, Corinth was the capital of Achaia (Greece), and not Athens, which like Thessalonica was a city of about 200,000 people. As the church grew, it very likely met in individual’s homes, few of which would hold more than 20 or 30 individuals at a time. While all considered themselves a part of the Church at Corinth, due to the persecution of the church by the Jewish community, it is highly likely that they operated as smaller “cells” if you will.

    As such, the division was not so much between Gentile and Jew, but likely divided itself into neighborhoods, which themselves were likely composed of those who shared cultural similarities, livelihoods, and social status.

    I would rather suspect (and this is all just friendly conjecture of course) that Paul’s main concern would be for displayed love, caring, and concern within and between the various house churches, and a strict adherence to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints.

25. KWK on 16 Sep 2008 at 2:15 pm #

    Among his innermost circle, Jesus had both a Jewish ultra-nationalist (Simon the Zealot) and a Jewish race-traitor (Matthew the tax collector). I’m fairly certain no power on Earth could have brought that about.

    If the power of Christ’s Spirit as shown in the lives of His people is not strong enough to overcome economic, racial, gender, political, cultural, etc., differences, then why should anyone on the outside—or the inside, for that matter—believe that His power is strong enough to overcome Sin?

26. Samsen on 16 Sep 2008 at 2:17 pm #

    Interesting post, Mike.

    I feel that I’m in an unique position to comment on the issues you have raised. I’m a student in the UK and I go to a church which is like 99% African/Black people when I’m attending University, and when I’m at home with my parents I attend a church which is the opposite of the former church in terms of ethnic proportions. The fact that our family were the first ‘non-white’ people in the latter church will give you a hint. And, our family is Asian: more specifically, Indian.

    Primarily, I don’t think segregation has a lot to do with mere geography as Mike pointed out in his OP. But, I would suggest, perhaps your second option, ‘the way we worship’ would play a substantial part in the perceived segregation. From the two churches, I attend regularly, I observe a very distinct style in which the whole service is conducted. The “white” church has a very “orderly” feel to it. The “black” Church (pardon the expression, I don’t know how else to put it. LOL) is comfortable with Rap/Hip-hop perfomances while the same would be very less likely to connect with the audience in the “white” church. I personally feel much more at home with the “white” church than the African/black church. And guess what, I have been raised in a completely different culture 80% my life! So, I suspect there is more to it than the “nature/nurture” dichotomy.

    However, consider this real life incident: one sunday at the African church, the pastor(an African) had invited a young african guy to speak in the main service. When the sermon time came, I was pretty sure that what he spoke was english, but I simply and utterly failed to grasp what he was getting at. Such was the speed, accent and an “abrasive” voice with which he delivered the sermon, I was just sitting there with a blank look on my face! After the service concluded, I gently asked my relative (who lives in the same community for many years and attends the same church) whether he understood the sermon. He shared how the message had touched him, adding that it was good to take it all in. I was dumbfounded, for the message was totally incomprehensible to me! So perhaps, where and how we are brought up does seem to have an influence on whether a particular way of “doing church” connects well with us.

    A thing I observed was that the musicians in the worship team of the “white” church use notes for the songs and stick to it, while the “black” church musicians never ever use notes. The leader just has a small note of the ‘key’ in which each song is to be sung. That’s all. Playing lead guitar in their worship team was fun! You get told the key you are supposed to play, and off you go, improvise on the spot!!

    Another thing, the songs that are sung in the “black” church are very simple in their lyrics often singing medleys of half a dozen choruses strung together. While the “white” church never sung medleys, with their worship style focusing on the lyrics of the song with often complex meanings.

    djohn asks: “Does the church give you that “warm & fuzzy” welcome when you attend? How do or did any of you feel when you visited and you were the minority? If you had a positive experience the 1st or 2nd time was it enough that would warrant you comming back and joining that church body?”

    In my experience where I was clearly in the minority in both the churches I attend, I was indeed given a very warm welcome. Especially when I attended the “white” church, such was the kindness and concern, I was able to see for the first time, what it is to be “Christ-like”. In fact, I became a Christian in that “white” church and I’ll never ever forget the people in there, ever in my life. Also when I’m away from home and at University, I attend the “Black” church and help out in their worship team sometimes. So, I’m good with both the churches.

    To respond to Leslie’s point about the rampant casteism in India: yes, I agree, when there is no colour difference, people make up irrational categories to segregate themselves. How pathetic, isn’t it? Sad thing is, the majority of Indian Christians are converted Hindus (at some point in their family history), and many don’t seem to renounce their old way of life.

    PS: Both the “white” and “black” church I was talking about are from the same denomination.

27. Jugulum on 16 Sep 2008 at 3:17 pm #

    Michael,

    I actually wasn’t suggesting that Paul would have a problem with multiple house churches. I was suggesting that if Jews were only gathering with Jews and Gentiles were only gathering with Gentiles, that he would have a problem.

    If it were only on the basis of, “We live close together, so we meet close together”, then I doubt that would be a problem–any more than “We meet with other Corinthian believers because we live in the same city.” A neighborhood is just a city on a smaller scale.

    But if the Jewish believers were saying “We prefer to meet with other Jewish Christians”… That seems iffy. Like you say, this is conjecture. But I think it’s a good way to frame the question.

28. Michael on 16 Sep 2008 at 3:22 pm #

    Agreed Jugulum…it is an excellent way to frame the question. We should always ensure that our adherence to the second great commandment is carried out first and foremost in our hearts…the behaviors will flow from that. Otherwise, the behaviors and “push for racial diversity” will only be an exercise in futility.

29. Jugulum on 16 Sep 2008 at 4:10 pm #

    Er… I’m not sure, but I think you may have misunderstood me.

    I do agree with you that the second commandment (as lived out in the church) is the main concern in this whole issue. Unity & love in the body of Christ.

    But I meant that “What would Paul think about Jewish & Gentile Christians gathering separately from one another?” is a good way to try to figure out if there’s a problem.

30. Michael on 16 Sep 2008 at 4:36 pm #

    So if true Christians otherwise unguided in this respect naturally seek to worship along whatever lines those particular groups form, whether they be racial, socio-economic, geographical, or stylistic, why is this a bad thing?

    If we are assuming (and I’m assuming we are) that the churches are filled (at least to some significant level) with Holy Spirit in-dwelt believers, and they are sensitive to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, why do we need the leadership to launch initiatives to ensure that the cultural makeup of the church matches the surrounding countryside?

    It may just be an over-reaction on my part, but this all sort of has the “smell” of conformance to worldly standards. This is something that the world is concerned with. Isn’t it more important that we ensure that we don’t have false prophets / leaders, heretics, and the unregenerate in positions of leadership in our churches first? Isn’t it also more important that we disciple our Christian brothers and sisters into maturity than worrying about what color we see when walking down the hall?

    If we are only going to focus on one “problem” in the church, may it NEVER be this one…in all but the nearly perfect churches (wherever they may be, and if they really exist). There are just too many real issues with which we need to deal. After all, if our churches are filled with happy, God-fearing, mature, loving, caring, and gospel oriented Christians, is it really important what our demographics look like…?

31. djohn on 16 Sep 2008 at 8:43 pm #

    If you all havent read Lisa’s post you should check it out the one she refers to above as well as this one
    http://worshipwhileitswarm.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2008/08/12/more-on-diversity/
    sometimes its best to write down your thoughts during the day when there fresh so you dont lose them. Now I have to re read though the comments. :0

    There’s been lots of argument about worship styles and music. These are not imho are not should not be the focal point. The point of refrence should be Christ, bring people to Him, teach them, and help them to maturity. As a black male raised in the city I would be comfortable joining a church lead by a J Piper regardless of the music. Why because a guy like him keeps the message centralized on Christ.

    I would never join a Church lead by a TD Jakes or a Creflo Dollar because there message is polluted.

    Its not about race or any other socio-economic conditions its about “like me or not like me”

    http://sgm.edgeboss.net/download/sgm/events/t4g08/t4g08-session2.mp3‘,”,”,’Bearing the Image: Identity, the Work of Christ, and the Church’,”,’Thabiti Anyabwile’

32. Latest and Greatest from the Reformed Blogosphere: Sep. 16 | The Veil Away on 16 Sep 2008 at 10:05 pm #

    [...] Michael Patton, over at the Parchment and Pen, has written an interesting article called Is Sunday Morning The Most Segregated Time in America? (which I find more interesting for the comment exchange that follows it than for the actual [...]

33. Jim on 17 Sep 2008 at 7:18 am #

    Let’s assume it’s just a natural cultural thing, and that it’s not a horrible sin. A couple other things to consider:

    1) If “Sunday morning (church) is the most segregated hour in America”, that would suggest that at other times people are less segregated. It may be “cultural”, but why is it more so Sunday morning?

    And what does that say to the world? The very fact that you and I have both heard this phrase tells us something.

    2) Even if two people of similar cultures congregate together, do they really demonstrate fellowship and love and cooperation outside of Sunday morning?

34. Craig on 17 Sep 2008 at 8:34 am #

    This is a great discussion. I was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about this very issue. I’m a pastor in Winona, MN which is about 30,000 people. We are predominately a white community however there are all sort of people groups here.

    We have an African American couple in our church. He is a gifted speaker. This past Sunday we had him speak from the pulpit. He also has done spoken word, hip-hop in our worship. It has been refreshing to say the least.

    Rochester, the big city 45 miles from us, the bigger churches there are predominately white and I believe no staff that are not white. This is coming from a community that is becoming hugely diverse.

    I think the lack of ethnicity in churches stems from the inability to connect with people of diversity, disciple those who have teaching gifts or any gift for that matter.

    For those of you who are from ethnically diverse areas, what are your experiences with diverse churches?

35. Jim on 17 Sep 2008 at 8:52 am #

    To paraphrase Ed Dobson: I don’t care if Sunday is the most segregated time in America. If my black friends came to my church, they would think they were attending a funeral. If I went to a black church, I would probably have a heart attack. I care what’s happening the rest of the week outside of church.

36. Juan Peña on 17 Sep 2008 at 1:19 pm #

    I too have read much about the subject and have spent the last six years planting a multi-ethnic church in Mt. Pocono, PA. This summer I moved my family to downtown Denver to plant another multi-ethnic, socio-economically diverse church.

    There is no question that we are in the midst of a demographical shift that will have an impact in the way church is done in heavily ethnically diverse areas of our country. Several weeks ago, I came across a front page article in the USA Today titled “Births Fueling Hispanic Growth: Immigration no longer top factor.” The article pointed out that for the first time in 30 years, births, not immigration, now account for most of the growth in the nation’s Hispanic population. According to this article, all the Hispanic growth in the city of Denver is coming from natural increase. This rapid increase is only going to accelerate over the next decade, which means that the number of second generation Hispanics will eventually outnumber the new immigrants coming to Denver.

    As a result of the reshaping of the nation’s ethnic makeup, it should hardly be surprising that Hispanics are helping blur the color lines that have long-marked previous American generations. According to a market research firm, 60% of American teens say they have friends of different ethnic backgrounds. More telling, however, is a 2006 Gallup Poll showing that 95% of young people (ages 18 to 29) approved interracial dating. Likewise, a Gallup Poll conducted last year among teens showed that 57% have dated someone of another race or ethnic group.

    What does this mean for Providence Bible Church? I believe that a healthy multi-ethnic church will be better equipped to attract minorities to Jesus Christ. Here at Providence Bible Church we don’t just say that all peoples of different ethnic backgrounds are welcome and leave it at that. We believe that if we are going to reach all the peoples of Denver for Christ, we need to be intentional in doing so. For this reason, we are committed to maintaining an ethnic balance in our pastoral staff. We believe that a church for “all people” is best led by a ministry team made up of “all people.” Right now, we are still praying for an African American brother to join our leadership team before our September 28th Grand Opening.

    Here is another example of intentionality at Providence. Last Sunday I spent 10 minutes before our greeting time teaching our people how to welcome others from different ethnic backgrounds. Traditionally in American churches, greeting time may extend to a handshake and quick hello; however, here at Providence, one of our core values is People Embracing. This means that we welcome people from all cultures! So what did we do?
    We literally practiced hugging and kissing in the middle of the service. We are constantly telling Providence that if we are going to be a multi-ethnic church we all need to step outside our comfort zone and this is one way that we have to do it. In speaking to another Spanish brother in the service that day, I asked for feedback. He said, “Well, if we’re supposed to be a family, we should be hugging.”

    Our style of ministry also reflects diversity. We have had people pray in Spanish, before and after the service we play music from Africa, Latin America and good old fashion Gospel music. Our worship team is practicing Spanish songs to introduce to our congregation. The length of our services can range between two and three hours. These are just a few of the things we are intentionally doing to build an environment in which God’s love for all peoples can be demonstrated and observed. To us building a multi-ethnic church is much more than an effort at racial reconciliation. We are convinced that it is a biblical mandate, because if in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, Greek or barbarian, then God’s church should look like God’s kingdom: full of people from every ethnic and economic class

37. Talacker29 on 17 Sep 2008 at 2:39 pm #

    Juan brings up an interesting aside to this discussion. Should churches hire ministers based on race, in an effort to “reach out” to a particular demographic? Should race/ethnicity be given preference to other attributes in the hiring process? Should a less-qualified candidate be given preference over a more-qualified one because he fits the target demographic of where a church would like to focus? When we focus on “multi-culturalism” and diversity, it seems we head down a slippery slope.

38. kwk on 17 Sep 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    Talacker29,

    It depends on what you mean by “less-qualified”. Though I am not ordained, I imagine that I have more theological training than some who are. But at the same time I have not lived the experience that many who are [pick an ethnic/cultural minority] have. Thus I would probably be ill-equipped to serve as a pastor in a setting that required significant shepherding of people of [pick an ethnic/cultural minority], as opposed to, say, simply teaching.

    Further, if the Body of Christ is doing its job, then there ought to be significant overlap between “qualified” and “fits the target demographic” anyway. I think it’s only because The Church too closely mirrors the values of The World that we even have to face this dilemma.

39. Talacker29 on 17 Sep 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    I think you can and should argue the merits and definitions of “qualified”. But, nonetheless, it is still a legitimate question to ask. Do we want to hire ministers based on race rather than other more substantative attributes, e.g. academic credentials, theological fit, etc. Maybe the answer is sometimes yes, I don’t know. We probably wouldn’t hire a newly ordained 23 year old as the “old folks” pastor.

40. Carrie on 17 Sep 2008 at 10:12 pm #

    Michael I haven’t had a chance to reply to this but have wanted to.

    You know where I live and have met some of my neighbors.I have had loads of people invite me to their respective churches. It would seem they haven’t even thought twice about the fact that I am white.
    They just know I am a believer and have said “oh well come and fellowship with us”.

    I would suspect if I did visit a church close to my area I would be in the minority in teerms of race yet again those who have asked me to come with them haven’t even considered that (at least I don’t think they have).

    Maybe mine is a unique situation?

    My biggest concern is what is taught. Some of my neighbors seem solid some not so much. But then, that is something that goes beyond race barriers.

    Anyway I reckon I haven’t helped to shed light on this matter.

    Great post and important.

41. C Michael Patton on 17 Sep 2008 at 10:19 pm #

    Folks, these are all very honest and informative responses. Thanks so much for taking the time.

    I seriously believe that this is a major issue that needs to be better studied and understood, if not corrected.

    I don’t really know where I am at right now, but it seems that there is a problem. I like the posts about diversity. Diversity does not seem to be merely a preference that we can opt for, but a mandate of the Gospel. Just how we achieve this, I don’t know.

    God help us. I seriously believe we may be overlooking one of the biggest problems in (American) Christianity.

42. debbi galbraith on 30 Jan 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    We believe it is a question of culture, not of race. Religion tends to be a part of specific cultures. People look for a place to feel as if they belong. It may be based off how they were raised and what their parents believed, how the service/music is performed, what type of lifestyle they lead on a daily basis, friends in the congregation, race, ethnicity(as race and ethnicity are not necessarily the same thing) geographic location, personal belief system, transportation, class, age, marital/divorce status, sexual orientation,etc…

    Interestingly, both my husband and I initially interpreted the question of segregation as one of religion, those who attend church or a worship service versus those who do not. We did not think “race” until we scrolled down.

43. A Missed Opportunity… and What is an EM? « WsKrides… on 29 Jun 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    [...] they have to wait for the KM—Korean Ministry—to finish their corporate worship services) is the most segregated time in America.  And when it comes to all-white or all-black churches, at least they have the excuse that the [...]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.