The following is an article that recently appeared in Sojourners Magazine:
NOTE: THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS, PUBLICATIONS, AND ORGANIZATIONS REFERENCED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE THE SOLE OPINIONS OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR(S) AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF NEW WINE, NEW WINESKINS OR MULTNOMAH UNIVERSITY.
Is the Emerging Church for Whites Only?
To survive in a quickly diversifying global church, the emerging church movement must do a better job of opening up its doors — and pursuing justice.
By Soong-Chan Rah and Jason Mach, with responses by Julie Clawson, Brian McLaren, and Debbie Blue
At the turn of the millennium, I (Soong-Chan) began hearing a lot about the “emerging church.” It seemed that everywhere I turned somebody was talking about the emerging church. A clear definition of the term was elusive (see “What is the Emerging Church?” by Julie Clawson, below), but the emerging church seemed to reflect ministry and theology rising out of the generation after the baby boomers. In particular, the emerging church was Western Christianity’s attempt to navigate through the context of an emerging postmodern culture.
At the time the emerging church was coming into vogue, I was pastoring a multi-ethnic, urban church plant in the Boston area. It seemed that every brochure for nearly every pastors’ conference I received featured the emerging church. As I began to attend some of those conferences, I noticed that every single speaker who claimed to represent the emerging church was a white male. A perception was forming that this was a movement and conversation occurring only in the white community.
On one occasion, I was at an emerging church conference and was told directly that non-whites were not of any significance in the emerging church. Granted, this was one specific instance, but it led to the sense that the emerging church was not a welcoming place for ethnic minorities. At another conference, on the future of the church, one of the speakers invited up a blond-haired, 29-year-old, white male, replete with cool glasses and a goatee, and pronounced him the face of the emerging church. “This guy is a great representative of the future of American Christianity.” I cringed. In terms of the public face of the emerging church, white males dominated. It seemed like the same old, same old. As per the lyrics by The Who: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
When Professor Rah was writing The Next Evangelicalism, he asked me (Jason) to visit a number of Web sites for emerging churches. I discovered that the large majority of emerging church leaders were white 20- to 30-year-olds. Photos showed people in trendy clothing, sporting cool hairstyles and eyewear.
Some might respond, so what? If the majority of people to whom the emerging church movement appeals are younger people of European descent and stylistic flair, then so be it. But there is a larger problem. As I continued my research, memories from my own spiritual journey flooded my mind—memories of hopelessness and longing, of wanting to believe there was something more rich and diverse about Christian life than what I was experiencing in the white suburbs. There was a great sense of joy when I found an emerging church, a place where people from various backgrounds (so I thought) were gathered in one community. I quickly became a fan of the emerging church. But now, in the midst of my research, my excitement was beginning to fade.
The emerging church, or rather this particular expression of it, was in essence no different than the church environment in which I was raised. Younger and cooler, maybe, but still the same: white, middle- to upper-class, and reflecting many of the values associated with these categories. It became apparent to me that this “emerging,” postmodern church was simply the pierced and tattooed offspring of its older, modern parents.
Missing the Big Picture
Both of us, in our own cultural contexts, began to recognize that what was being presented as the future of Christianity was only a small sliver of larger changes in the church. Left out of the spotlight, and perhaps the whole discussion, was the fact that the church is going through change on a global level, not just in the West.
Part of the problem was the conflation of terms. The emerging church is popularly presented as a catch-all concept of a generational shift at work in the West, represented by specific brands such as “Emergent” or “Emergent Village,” a group of emerging church leaders who organized, established a board, gained members, and launched a Web site. There has been disproportionate coverage given to the emerging church in the Christian media and in Christian publications, exemplified by Emergent Village’s three separate book deals with major Christian publishing companies. As noted in The Next Evangelicalism, in 2000 only about 200 churches in the U.S. and the U.K. could be identified as emerging churches. Yet, there are more than 50 books with emerging church themes. In contrast, there are less than a handful of books written about, for example, the second-generation Asian-American ministry, which numbers as many as 700 churches.
Further complicating the confusion is the recent notion among some in the West that the emerging church as a whole has died. For example, in January 2010, one blogger wrote an obituary for the emerging church. The obituary characterized the emerging church as having made “many advances in the Christian church, including facial hair, tattoos, fair trade coffee, candles, couches in sanctuaries, distortion pedals, Rated R movie discussions, clove cigarettes and cigars, beer, and use of Macs”—a satirical characterization that nonetheless seems to hold a grain of truth.
Even in declaring the death of the emerging church, the focus is on its Western expression. The face and heart of the movement that was being lamented was defined by white Americans, furthering the perception that the emerging church is an exclusively Western, white expression. Even when the blogger notes the emerging church’s contributions to “women’s issues, conversations about sexuality, environmentalism, anti-foundationalism, [and] social justice,” they are put in the context of Western society.
Another example of the difficulty in understanding and using the term “emerging church” is found in a blog entry from December 2009. The blogger states that “history will most likely mark 2009 as the point of transition and maturation for the emerging church movement.” The “emerging church” being referred to is the Western expression of it; the history provided centers on events in Western countries and cultures. Yet found in the following sentence is this statement: “various streams within the movement will continue on for many years to come. For example, the biggest global emerging church event on the calendar for 2010 will take place in Brazil and be attended mostly by Latin Americans.” If the larger emerging church has many different streams, then why, if one of those streams supposedly has dried up, is the entire movement being declared dead?
In truth, the term “emerging church” should encompass the broader movement and development of a new face of Christianity, one that is diverse and multi-ethnic in both its global and local expressions. It should not be presented as a movement or conversation that is keyed on white middle- to upper-class suburbanites.
Finding a Balance
In search of some much-needed perspective, we spoke with a number of people in Emergent Village. Do they think the emerging church is truly dead? If not, where is it headed and what does it have to offer?
Emergent Village participants interviewed for this article held the same general belief: The emerging church is not, in fact, dead. Both David Park, who had previously been involved with the Metro Atlanta Emergent Cohort, and Anthony Smith, a member of the Emergent Village Coordinating Group, noted that if anything about the emerging church has died, it is the novelty, hype, and commercialism given to it by the Christian publication industry.
“Christian [publishing] took the emerging church from 0 to 60 in a matter of seconds,” Park said. On this same note, Rebecca Cynamon-Murphy, co-host of a Chicagoland Emergent cohort, said that “the emerging church has a number of people of privilege, and the Christian publishing companies handed the keys over to them.” According to Cynamon-Murphy, this led to difficult choices for those who wished to use the published materials as a means to effect real change. Waning attention from the media could likely prove to be beneficial, said Park, allowing more space for those in the emerging church to “get on with the work.”
Cynamon-Murphy and others, such as Julie Clawson, a member of the Emergent Village Council (Emergent’s leadership group), spoke of changes and shifts occurring within the church, both in its larger sense and in the Emergent context. “The conversation [in the larger church] is shifting from a belief-based system to a relationship-based system,” said Cynamon-Murphy, a perspective she believes matches that of Emergent and which will help bring about real transformation and liberation focused on people of all backgrounds, not only the privileged. In words echoing our own experiences, Clawson noted that the emerging church is moving away from its “initial expression as something cool, fun, and trendy,” and toward the “hard work of building its identity,” which includes recognizing the important role of missions in the life of the church.
So if the emerging church is still alive and well, what is the next milestone on its path? Many feel it’s the difficult and challenging work of racial reconciliation. Melvin Bray, a member of Emergent’s Village Council, discussed the importance of the emerging church working toward a “wider voice [being given to] a wider breadth of people.” More specifically, Bray said that the emerging church should seek to become an agent in “creating opportunities for those who, in the past, have been marginalized.” This would direct the conversation away from being centered “exclusively on a Western theological perspective,” giving those who have long been subordinated to colonialism an opportunity to “deconstruct non-helpful religious constructs” and engage God in their own ways.
In talking about racial reconciliation, Anthony Smith said there is a difference between racial diversity and racial justice. Simply including people from ethnic minorities in events and leadership positions is not enough. Doing so may create the appearance of racial diversity, but this would only be a surface solution. Instead, the emerging church must engage in what Smith calls “racial penance,” a situation in which there is true justice between people of different ethnicities, allowing the church to “get rid of Western, white captivity.” Smith said that “friendship is important for repentance” and that “isolation is dangerous.”
The way these concepts are communicated—especially to younger people—is very important, according to Alise Barrymore, pastor of a self-identified emerging church called the Emmaus Community. Specifically, said Barrymore, the emerging church needs to offer “new language and tools to help the next generations understand church.” This, combined with the drive for racial reconciliation and justice, will be crucial for ethnic churches such as the African-American church, which places high value on “negotiating the [role] of race.” Failure to effectively engage individual cultures on their own terms will result in “not translating ideas into language that is accessible and understandable to others,” said Clawson, creating a barrier to the spiritual and social progress the emerging church seeks.
An Emerging Future?
Members of the Emergent movement are optimistic that a more ethnically diverse and inclusive future is possible. Has there been a shift in Emergent? One of the major developments in recent years is that the more visible faces and names from the early years have moved on from leadership in the emerging church, and Emergent Village is now in the process of building an identity that doesn’t rely on these well-known people.
If the white male locus of Emergent is truly passé, then Emergent has the opportunity to become a part of the larger stream of the real emerging church. If the label of the emerging church is to have a future, then the term needs to be reclaimed and disassociated from the specific brand of Emergent, and applied much more broadly to the church around the world.
The burgeoning church is not just a small sliver of American Christianity; rather, it must be seen in the context of a larger movement of God on a global scale. The real emerging church is global and multi-ethnic—and a truly international, truly diverse emerging church has great potential to bring about authentic, deep revival to the world.
Soong-Chan Rah is Milton B. Engebretson associate professor of church growth and evangelism at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago and the author of The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. Jason Mach is a student at North Park Theological Seminary.
What is the Emerging Church?
On its face, the emerging church is a decentralized Christian movement exploring what it means to follow Jesus in our postmodern age.
Since it is cross-denominational and cross-cultural, however, expressions of emergence vary widely, encompassing everything from evangelical conversations about being culturally relevant to mainline liturgical renewals, from a rediscovery of social justice among suburban Christians to new monastic communities among the urban poor, from provocative theological discussions to postcolonial reconciliation movements (to name just a few). These culturally and theologically diverse streams are discovering together how to move the faith forward into the 21st century.
Transparently open-sourced, the emerging conversation includes anyone who desires to lend her voice to it. Emergent Village serves as one facilitator of this conversation, resourcing and connecting people to the diversity of emerging voices worldwide.
Theological discussions sparked by leaders in Emergent are often met with controversy, especially when they challenge traditional Western assumptions about the gospel and encourage the voices of women and other cultural minorities. Nevertheless, both Emergent and the broader emerging movement are navigating what it means to practice sustainable faith in a globalized and postmodern/postcolonial world, and hopefully helping the church universal better understand and celebrate the beautiful plurality of Christian expressions worldwide.
Julie Clawson is author of Everyday Justice and a member of the Emergent Village Council.
Overcoming Resistance
I’m glad that Soong-Chan Rah and Jason Mach have addressed some important questions about this wide-ranging phenomenon known as emerging church. I might address a few small details differently. For example, while I’m very happy to see that many new churches are being planted, for a lot of reasons I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to brand and count them as “emerging” or “emergent” or whatever. What’s far more significant to me are wide-ranging changes in outlook among a wide range of leaders in both new and existing churches—Catholic, mainline Protestant, Pentecostal, evangelical, etc.
But small quibbles aside, I am in full agreement that we need to understand the real story in terms of a shift away from white, Western, male hegemony and homogeneity. For many years I’ve believed that “the postmodern conversation” in the West was one side of the coin, and the more interesting side was the postcolonial conversation arising in the global South.
To me, deep, theological conversations about the shape and purpose of the gospel, along with issues of justice—racial, environmental, and economic—are far more urgent and important than arguments about what goes on in church services, as valuable as church services are. The way forward must involve—and not just in a token way—exactly the kind of diversity Soong-Chan and Jason call for. The systemic resistance to this diversity is subtle but strong, and its consequences are sad. Many of us have been working quietly behind the scenes in hopes that this resistance can, by God’s grace, be overcome.
Brian McLaren’s most recent book is A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith.
A Broken Church, Renewed
The church at its best is a messed-up, broken witness to the grace of God, and at its worst a suffocating, power-seeking, patriarchal, and divisive body. If the emerging church reflects some of the values of the “capitalist entertainment empire,” it also has generated an enormous amount of creativity and freedom to question structures and texts and power. Certainly other communities all over the world are generating similar freedoms.
The church I serve is diverse. The congregants are old and young, from Catholic, mainline, fundamentalist, and atheist backgrounds, gay, straight, working class, intellectual, Buddhist, Quaker, drunks, in recovery, artists, and musicians. They are square, circular, zigzag, hyphenated, and occasionally Republican.
Despite these differences, there is a commonality to the people who end up at our church as well. They are usually not wealthy. They tend to question a lot about mainstream society. They are often of European descent. I would not hold us up as the face of the future of American Christianity. That would be silly, scary, and boring. Every manifestation of the church reflects some of the aberrations and illusions of the culture it lives in. Hopefully it also reflects the entirely life-giving love of God.
Debbie Blue is pastor of House of Mercy in St. Paul, Minnesota and author of Sensual Orthodoxy.
Is the Emerging Church for Whites Only? By Soong-Chan Rah and Jason Mach, with responses by Julie Clawson, Brian McLaren, and Debbie Blue. Sojourners Magazine, May 2010 (Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 16). Cover.
I read through it quickly, but interesting points, and I’ve wondered the same thing. I think we forget the divisions are so ingrained in us culturally, and so we have to be intentional about moving forward. Our natural inclinations are to choose the church that best reflects us as individuals, and not that best reflects all of Christ’s body in its diversity. Though McLaren may have a point about the usefulness of the “emergent” label, I disagree with the idea that what goes on outside the church is more important than what goes on in the church. We can’t tell a divided world to be reconciled with any credibility if the church can’t live as one reconciled body first. It has to be both, and given what we believe as Christians, “church services” (seems to wrongly imply that what happens in church services would not continue and spread into the rest of the church’s life) should be the easiest first step and a powerful one at that.
Diversity is definitely a great thing…but many times it seems like people complain about the lack of diversity when it’s not necessarily a problem.
Churches generally get formed by a small group of people that are more than likely friends and have similar likes & dislikes. It is probably safe to say that the majority of times the people are all from the same or a similar subculture within culture and than they form a formalized group of people into a congregation and design everything from that. The people they naturally start inviting will probably be from the same subculture. The church will simply start having a flavor of that subculture….and that’s ok.
If all/most of the people in a church were from a culture that was very reserved and they are used to structure within a Sunday program, (for example…a church formed of people that are from Norway) …bring in people from a culture that is more expressive and not as tied to structure, etc…(like my friends from Puerto Rico or Africa) …they usually just don’t find themselves connecting to that particular subculture and many times choose to check out a different place to worship.
There is also the idea of going to a church nearby. Many people when they immigrate try to locate themselves in a community of people from a similar background. When it comes to finding a church they will probably look at finding a church nearby which surprise surprise…is probably predominantly filled with people from within that community.
I guess we could encourage bussing to desegregate our churches but that seems counter productive.
The other thing that is always interesting to me in talking about diversity, is it always seems to be a knock on churches that are mainly Caucasian. I have a friend who is black that constantly does this….yet she goes to a church that is fairly solidly black….and has no problem with that. Ironically enough…neither do I. I am happy that she goes to a church that has people in it and pray they grow in numbers and closer to God.
Some churches I’m sure have people that don’t want other races or socioeconomic diversity…and that is sad. BUT there are many more that truly don’t care about race or class, but simply care about going to church and inviting people they have relationships with.
back to the focus of “emergent churches” in this…I think maybe they need to simply not be as worried about making sure they “look diverse” and more about simply continuing to love God and others that God blesses them with having relationships with. If their church is mainly Caucasian…so what! So long as it is not purposefully segregated I think they’ll be alright 🙂
James, I’d like to reply to some of your statements.
“The people they naturally start inviting will probably be from the same subculture. The church will simply start having a flavor of that subculture….and that’s ok.”
Sure that’s “ok” as a place to start, but certainly you’re not saying that the homogenous church community is the best expression of the Body of Christ (especially for those churches that exist in a multi-ethnic cosmopolitan setting like Portland)?
“…they usually just don’t find themselves connecting to that particular subculture and many times choose to check out a different place to worship. . . BUT there are many more that truly don’t care about race or class, but simply care about going to church and inviting people they have relationships with.”
I’m not sure if you noticed the seeming inconsistencies in your comments. On the one hand, there is a clear recognition that most of us have a hard time “connecting” to a “particular subculture”, and then on the other hand you say that people, “don’t care about race or class.” Well we obviously do care about race or we wouldn’t have the difficulty of “connecting” to the “subcultures” – the ones that have unfamiliar “flavors.”
You’re right that there is nothing wrong with having personal tastes or preferences. The problem happens when our personal preferences, playing to our comforts and “tastes”, become the basis for shaping and limiting our engagement of people who are different from ourselves. If the church of the future is multi-etnic, consisting of “every tongue and tribe”, then why shouldn’t the church of today be a testimony to this reality?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I hope you hear this in the spirit it was intended, gratitude to be able to engage important issues through respectful dialog.
I completely hear it in the way you intended, don’t worry 🙂
I appreciate your comments but disagree with what you see as an “inconsistency”. Maybe the fault is with me though in not clarifying enough. I could care less about someones race or class (meaning someones race or class does not bring them greater or lesser favor in my eyes/value judgments) BUT there will still be ones that I don’t connect with. I can try to focus my time and energies that direction…or simply embrace the ones I do connect with and go with that. Churches can be simply that way and it’s okay.
I think part of the problem in out thoughts on this tends to be that even in our new “emergent church” culture, we think of “the church” on too much of just our local church body sense. We keep forgetting that the church IS multi-ethnic. The church IS diverse. So what if we meet in different buildings.
I attend a specific local body of believers that is primarily white, though there are a handful of latinos (that feel at home there too). The socioeconomic makeup is across the board. BUT we also think of ourselves as just one group of believers within the church. The “church” in North Marion is diverse and multi-ethnic. Ironically enough, this last Thanksgiving 6 churches combined in the high school gym for a service and the pastors focused on making sure every church had the opportunity to be a part of the service and bring things to it that was reflective of their culture, etc. The only church that chose not to have anyone up front, though they still came and participated, was a hispanic congregation. The next Sunday we all went back to our local bodies though. Do we exclude people based on their race or class? No! Do we need to make sure that we seek out people from other races to come to our church? No! What we need to do is simply seek out those that are lost regardless of their race and go with that. If our church stay mostly white…fine. If it changes down the road to predominantly hispanic…that’s fine too.
This same thing goes for any church in any community. It doesn’t matter if it’s an emergent or traditional church …or if it’s a “diverse city” or non-diverse city. (though I really liked Diverse City…great album!)
It seems that the bible teaches that it does not matter what a persons race or background is. What matters is the state of their soul….of having a personal and intimate relationship with a loving savior.
From what I’ve seen, one of the things that “emergent churches” do well is showing God’s love to all. I say that is what they need to worry about making sure continues to happen. If doing that brings other races into local congregations…great! If it doesn’t, but they are still bringing unsaved white people…that’s great too!
The emergent church is already a part of an extremely diverse church.
Wouldn’t Jews naturally connect with other Jews, and Gentiles with other Gentiles? And yet Paul seems pretty concerned that the church body does not divide based on preferences and subcultures. According to Paul, and Jesus as well, the power of the church’s witness partly lies in her ability to gather different kinds of people into one communion under Christ, the One who has broken down the walls of hostility and provided for our reconciliation (Ephesians especially gets at this). If we don’t worship together despite our differences, if our churches remain segregated so long after society has integrated, then saying we’re reconciled remains empty words.
I think Americans in general are so used to interacting with people like them, we have forgotten how to get over ourselves and interact with people who are different. Even the occasional conservative. Okay, that’s going too far. Just a pinko church for me. Because, kidding aside, what about people who don’t naturally fit into the different subcultures? If church is entirely based on preferences, they are often left in the cold. We may like to think we’d be able to step in at that point, but more often than not it doesn’t happen and they don’t feel welcome in affinity based churches.
And, lastly, as the people who pushed African Americans out of our churches, I think the onus is on us to be intentional about moving beyond the divisions. Though it is a two-way street (and most African Americans I’ve talked to will admit that they have failed on their end as well).
I’ve noticed my comments have been to the point and haven’t contained any greetings, niceties. My tone isn’t intended to be harsh in any of these.
haha…no problem. I know you’re not a harsh person and are usually concerned that you don’t come across that way :-)…definitely a good example in that actually, and I know I do try to implement more of that because of your example, so thanks.
back to the subject…
I honestly think that there is more to Paul’s context and letters for his statements though. First, if I remember this right, his letters were often used as circular letters and I think Paul always had in mind the church universal, equally if not greater than just local bodies of believers. In those letters he says not to take into account peoples differences. In God’s eyes there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female…etc…
What mattered to Paul was people having a relationship with Christ or not. If he was wanting to make sure that every one of these groups was represented in each local body, surely he would have given them instructions to do so. He tells them not to be racist/prejudiced when it comes to how they treat people…but that seems to be it with those areas. He does tell them to share the gospel without regard to these things…but he doesn’t say…make sure you have a quota of each and every particular subculture in each local body of believers.
Again…I think that we keep thinking way too small in what we think of when we talk about the church. The church in Portland IS diverse, because the church in Portland is made up of each and every believer that is here regardless of which particular local body they attend. I am a part of the same church that you are a part of which is the same church that Fred is a part of and so on….My thoughts when I happen to meet another Christian or when I was checking out other local groups of believers, is “sweet! new family members to meet!” I have gone to so m any churches during my life and think of them all as home in a way. Some have things I connect with more so than others and there are some that I don’t connect with at all, but if they are followers of Christ than I am home.
When it comes to making sure that everyone feels connected at all times and in every way, unfortunately that will simply not be able to happen until God makes us all perfect. We need to make sure that it is not because we are being hateful etc…but frankly, we all are unique individuals and some of us may simply not connect with many people at all even. Some of us may simply not connect to certain styles or feel comfortable around them. I know people that do not like anything other than hymns for example. If they were to move to an area that did not have a church where they played only hymns what should happen? Should any church they go to change their format to only hymns because someone new came that wanted only hymns? take that and then put even more cultural issues with it. What if a person from a white community and that grew up in a Church of Christ congregation (the kind that doesn’t believe in using instruments) moved to an area where there were no Church of Christ congregations that they know of? Maybe it also happens to be primarily a hispanic community…maybe even in another country. They attend a decent church for awhile but the style of worship is simply not familiar or comfortable to them. They go to the pastor with their concerns and ask if there is anyway they can stop using instruments because they really do not feel it is right to do.
The pastor listens and also knows that there is a Church of Christ about 10 miles away, but easily within a comfortable drive time though further from the community the person lives in. He knows the person well and considers him a friend and knows that he has been able to connect with some others in the church on a personal level…but the music and even some other doctrinal issues have many differences. He knows that this person would probably connect with this other church better…should he go ahead and recommend it to the person, even though it would mean losing a person from a different ethnicity?
There is a difference between division and attending different local bodies of believers where you have similarities.
In Paul’s day there was not near the same number of Christians nor even the same breadth of cultural diversity. Should we be “divided” over these things? NO! But again, attending local congregations with people that are primarily similar to us is not necessarily being divisive.
In Paul’s day there was MORE cultural diversity. Greek cities were Greek, Scythian, Roman, Jewish, Gaul, etc., none of them liking each other. In that tension, Paul thought it important that the body not divide among cultural lines into separate bodies. I think anything less is not a faithful reading of Ephesians, or much of the rest of the New Testament. Paul cares much more than just about the individual’s relationship to Christ, as important as that also is. Paul didn’t say, there is no Jew and Gentile, male and female… therefore gather however you want and who cares. He said those distinctions come to naught in Christ, therefore gather as one respecting the differences.
We can say we’re not divided all day long. They are empty words as long as we ARE divided. Sunday mornings are still the most segregated time of the week (and now the ONLY, that HAS to break our hearts as Christians). No one has said anything about “quotas,” but churches should reflect their communities in a meaningful sense.
Again…you’re looking not at the big picture but at small individual pictures which don’t always show the whole story.
The “church” IS NOT just one specific gathering of believers. The church IS including of anyone who is a follower of Christ. While there are some churches that refuse to partake in the larger church body and be divisive that way, there are many others that don’t and therefore actually embrace the “diversity” within the Body of Christ. Just like the example given of the “church” as seen in North Marion School district. I attend one specific gathering of people that follow Christ and there are several others as well. They all have different looks and feels but have made a point to realize they are a part of the larger body of believers. The pastors meet regularly to pray for one another and plan some events together that reflect this diversity AND our unifying Savior. This includes people from across the spectrum ethnically and socioeconomically. Do we need to make sure that we have Mexicans at every one of our services every Sunday? NO! We are always welcoming of every person that walks through the doors though on any given Sunday. The hispanic population largely gathers together because that is where they feel most comfortable for style of worship including the language issue. The other churches have some Hispanics that have joined in to their congregations and those that do are fully accepted and loved as members of the body. The “division” issue has not been an issue for us….at least not yet, and the pastors are focused on not letting in happen. The church is diverse even though the specific groups we attend the majority of the time have people gathered with some similarities. That’s okay and is not a problem…because we are reflecting our communities in a meaningful sense.
I just think that this talk about diversity sometimes…many times actually, looks for and almost creates problems that aren’t there.
also…we don’t know that in Paul’s time that those Christians from all those groups gathered regularly together as just one whole body. In fact, being that they were house churches, chances are they weren’t large congregations of people. Given that, they were probably gathered together much like we would…based upon whom we normally talk to and have relationships with. BUT Paul did see the big picture and wanted them to realize that they needed to think of themselves as ONE BODY of believers. I would picture Paul saying it today towards the whole situation of denominations, etc….
I will be so bold as to try and consolidate the viewpoints expressed above:
First View: a) The issue of “race” = I don’t hate or judge them for the color of their skin so
I just may or may not “appreciate” and feel “comfortable” in that
sub-culture.
b) The issue of homogenous (segregated) churches is a very natural and “ok”
social phenomenon based on individual preference so there is no need to
revert to talk of quotas or guilt tactics to reform something that’s really
not a problem.
c) The church is a “universal” reality, therefore, relax, don’t panic, it’s ok that
the church is segregated in the “local” context because we are ultimately
still united in the “universal” sense.
Viewpoint 2:
a) There are two sides to “race” issues: 1) the aggressive side = hostility and
injustice based on prejudice and discrimination. 2) the passive side = “really, no
offense, but they’re just not my ‘kind’ of people.
b) The issue of the homogenous unit principle when applied to Christianity: gospel witness and the community of the saints is really not “ok” and it never has been – remember why Paul had to rebuke Peter openly in Antioch? It’s because Peter was guilty of “preferring” his Jewish friends at the cost of ignoring his gentile brothers. Paul viewed this as a betrayal of the gospel itself.
c) The church is the concrete manifestation of God’s heavenly kingdom. So if the picture of the “universal church” is clearly portrayed as multi-ethnic, then why shouldn’t the local and concrete church mirror that reality?
First let me say that I personally find the observations in the first view to be spot on – I think he nailed it in terms of how allot of folks view this stuff. Where I part with the first viewpoint is in my assessment of the issues: I personally do not think that it’s “ok” to affirm and condone the homogenous unit principle when it comes to the local church. I have recently become convinced that the issue that keeps us from progressing in this area (conversation?) is really bound up in our preference-driven, consumerism. In a free-market it’s no sin to like what I like (it doesn’t get more American than that) and nobody wants some zealous ideologue telling them what they should and shouldn’t like. But unfortunately the church doesn’t challenge these knee-jerk fears. Instead the church is often guilty of indulging our consumer and preference-driven appetites.
Unfortunately your summary of my views is not was I was trying to say, and since you both don’t understand, I will assume the fault lies with me being too wordy/not clear enough.
Right now I have to work on a paper but will come back to this tomorrow or so….:-)
To say that there are separate house gatherings for Jews and Gentiles is COMPLETELY conjecture. Nowhere in the text is that even hinted at. That goes against Paul’s larger argument.
Work with me for a moment.
You have believers of a new religion that are growing in number, but are also persecuted for their beliefs. They didn’t have large meeting places like we do now yet and basically were meeting in people’s houses. Yes there were Jews, yes there were gentiles, yes there were people from all sorts of backgrounds….but given limited space and that they would be trying to keep it low key, how many people do you think they packed into these homes? Also thinking about the fact that most of those who were believers were not the wealthy of society with large homes anyways (not that any homes were that large then) …they simply would not be having large massive get together s in people’s homes.
It is absolutely conjecture to also think that Paul was addressing anything other than the church as a whole in Ephesus, or Corinth, or Rome, etc. They logistics of the time would dictate that there were many little gatherings that made up the whole of the church in every one of those cities. At least logically that is how it would work. They didn’t have one big building for the church at Ephesus…unless you know of some archeological find I’ve never heard of
Paul’s larger argument is for the church as a whole…where does it say anything else?
The usual practice was often to meet at rich people’s homes (based on passages I don’t care enough to look up), which were large enough to house not just today’s nuclear family, but extended family and slaves as well, and which typically had a large courtyard in the middle. So these are relatively large gatherings (large enough to need overseers, deacons, widows, etc.). In addition, most of the letters Paul is writing seem to be to the only congregation in their respective cities.
You’re assuming church as a whole = larger, invisible church. Paul is addressing issues of division and hostility in visible church bodies. His arguments don’t make sense otherwise. What would it matter if Peter was refusing table fellowship with Gentiles if Peter was at a Jewish Church? It’d be like refusing to drink alcohol at a baptist leadership retreat. Paul is concerned that the church’s visible expression (i.e. actual gatherings) reflects the unity in Christ. Commanding a church, “Be one in Christ” makes as much sense as commanding a person, “Be a human being,” if he’s talking about the invisible church. The invisible church is unified by definition.
We also have a blog going talking about consumerism with regards to picking churches….definitely a relevant discussion that also pertains to this topic. I hear Emergents talk against it and bring up some valid points. tie that in with this…and what has been said above is that we shouldn’t pick out churches or run churches based on our preferences, etc…
if that is true, than all of these newly formed (new being within the last couple decades especially) were really in error in forming. Did they not form based off of like-minded people coming together because they all had things in common? Should they not have instead stayed at their local bodies and worked to bring in diverse people there instead?
Also, thinking about the logistics of how church runs…and I’m talking even about the actual service programming. How exactly do you design a service that connects to people from across the spectrum of society? Not only are there the cultural differences, but also theological differences (ironically enough many times these are strongly culturally intertwined). What if one person comes from a culture and background that believes in Tongues, holy laughter, etc….and another is a cessationist? How do you structure a local body with those groups? What if you come from a culture where quietness and reverential attitude is what is acceptable and they are trying to meet with people who praise God with song and dance in a service? How do you structure that?
We’re supposed to be all about embracing people’s cultures, which is all well and good….but that does not necessarily mean that can function productively together week after week. In fact by forcing some of those things ends up causing conflict and division where it wasn’t before.
haha…kindof like a very conservative person posting on a blog where the majority are the oppositet 😉
really…so according to your logic than we shouldn’t be worried about bringing denominations in a community together because by definition they are already a part of the same body. I think looking at our culture over the last few hundred years shows that the denominational differences are what has hurt the church from being unified as a whole way more than having simply not enough of one particular ethnic group in a local congregation
actually, most scholars believe that Ephesus was written as a circular letter….not just to one congregation in Ephesus.
For the record, I just want to say that I’m not writing on here just to cause conflict but because I do enjoy looking more deeply at these issues and knowing that New Wine values diversity figured it would be okay to chime in with a differing viewpoint. 🙂
That’s my point, we can’t be divided in groups (whether race or denominations) and say we’re unified in some sense so abstracted that it’s meaningless.
Just because it’s a circular letter does not mean he’s not dealing with issues concerning concrete visible bodies. And the argument is an aspect of most of Paul’s letters, even the more specific ones.
As long as you’re respectful and listen to others, you’re more than welcome to chime in.
If you want to read another perspective, you can go to consumingjesus.org and find Alex Mutagubya’s paper “Is the Consumer Church Being Exported to Africa?” on the issue. Great stuff.
haha…I don’t think either of us understand each other at all actually. I feel like I really must be missing something that you are trying to say and that you aren’t understanding what I’m saying either.
I would love to know how you would handle the actual examples I talked about above and not just in abstracts.
I hope that I am coming off as listening and respectful. Sometimes I get the feeling (not from you, but others I debate with sometimes) that they assume because I continue to disagree with them on issues that I am not listening. Knowing our views on things, and how apparently steadfast we are in our views, I doubt there will be many times we agree….but I do really desire to be respectful and not disagreeable 🙂
“A conservative person posting on a blog where the opposite is the majority?”
James, comments like that, happy face not withstanding, tend to politicize, polarize and corrupt the dialog. You really have no idea what you’re saying when you assume that myself or any of the “majority” here at new wine are “opposite of conservative.” No wonder we aren’t getting anywhere with each other, not even specific points of disagreement. For starters, I wouldn’t be here at Multnomah if I was the “opposite of conservative.” And as you alluded to above, this kind of conservative-liberal b.s. always leads to “forcing (our issues on one another, which) ends up causing conflict and division where it wasn’t before.” I have no interest in that kind of discussion so respectfully, I’m out.
peace,
c
Sorry Christopher…I was trying to interject a little bit of humor into it. the “hahah” and smiley face were trying to convey a tone of voice that was honestly friendly. I just had lunch the other day with someone at Multnomah who is a Democrat and did the same type of thing with me…and I was not offended at all by it actually. He asked if it was okay that he sat to lunch with me even though he was a democrat, knowing full well I am anything but a democrat and I gave some sarcastic yet friendly jibe back…and we still were able to eat together.
I was not meaning conservative as a reference to politics at all. Maybe the people are not left leaning then, but most of the views that I read expressed on here do slant in what many would call a left leaning direction. Maybe opposite of conservative was the wrong word, however I know that I am conservative and since so much of what I say seems to be opposite of what most others (at least those who choose to respond) say in reply…it comes across as opposite of conservative to me. and I am honestly okay with that…at least to the degree that I don’t think any less of those that hold opposite views though I may passionately hold to a differing view.
I think that’s the problem, James. We’ve done nothing but argue from Scripture about the church, and you still seem to see this us just liberals being liberals, not knowing what any of us believe about politics. I know you were joking though, so no problem.
As far as practical examples, see Alex’s paper, or any of the many multi-cultural churches in the Portland area. But in general, lack of creativity or laziness are not theologically acceptable reasons to ignore anything.
I don’t see it as liberals being liberals in the political sense though. I see it as interpreting Scripture through a sociological liberal lens though. It ties in somewhat with what you were saying on the other posting about politics etc…and how we can’t just separate these things. With that concept I do agree. Not that this is about politics….but that it’s about the same mindset of processing through information that has what would be described as a liberal, or in my case conservative, lens. You even reluctantly described yourself as left leaning, I believe, in the political discussion. I know I am right leaning…and the way we process through things, whether it is scripture, politics, or social issues are all going to be processed through that reasoning.
You and I at least have had enough discussions about politics, that your views differing from mine on this issue is of no surprise. From the other times of discussing things with people involved with New Wine at school and hearing/reading much of what people say in all these areas, I know that most are fairly similar to what you believe and think on these things. Is that not a pretty fair assessment? I still know that you all absolutely love God and love people. I have no doubt that most of the people involved with New Wine also want to greatly and positively impact the world at large with God’s love and grace. I too want those things, however, when it comes to seeing where issues are and the best solutions at how to impact them is where we diverge.
I would love to talk more about this with you in person though actually. There are some things/questions that I would love to talk with you about that have to do with this somewhat but feel if I bring it up here somehow it will not be interpreted the right way. 🙂 I have a knack for that when I type I think…
It still sounds like because some of us may not be “conservative” as you understand it, that we’re automatically liberals. Despite the fact that NW has both political conservatives and liberals, and both American and international students that don’t give a crap about American political fetishes, you’re interpreting us first as liberals, or people looking through a liberal lens, rather than as Christians interpreting Scripture. I was hesitant to say “leaning liberal” for this reason. I believe conservatives and liberals share many presumptions I reject for theological reasons.
I’m more than happy to talk to you. But honestly, I don’t think I’m qualified and think even most of these comments show my inadequacy and hypocrisy addressing this issue. May I suggest going to Emmaus church in North Portland, experiencing a multi-cultural service, and maybe even trying to talk to the pastor about why he thinks this is important? Otherwise, shoot me an email and I’m happy to talk, though it may be a while. Or both, maybe we can talk about the experience afterwards.
I am not using the words liberal and conservative in just a political way! haha…this is exactly what I am talking about. The words are bigger than just when being used about politics and I am not sure how else to say that.
Most every argument that you have towards anything I seem to say and vice versa are reflective of the ways in which we think that are commonly labeled as conservative or liberal. Again…think outside of politics. The stances you take on issues are a result of how your brain processes through information. In most of the discussions we have had you seem to disagree, which is fine. I know many others who hold to very similar viewpoints that you do, and in most all of the areas that you seem to hold them. This includes but is not limited to: politics, social issues, and theological issues. Many of these do intersect with each other. Most of positions that I hold to in all of these areas do fall under a conservative mindset, as do yours fall under a more liberal mindset.
This is a sincere question: I get the impression from this and other conversations with you and others, that there is a tendency to shy away from “being labeled” among those that generally fall under the emergent umbrella. Is that part of what the issue is here?
James, honestly, how do you assume to speak for any of us, and you do whenever you talk about looking at the world through a “liberal” or “conservative” lens. How do you assume to know what “lens” I’m looking through? Do you not see how your own self-professed “mindset” (you call it a “conservative lens”) is by it’s very nature, a monochrome lens which conveniently divides the world into those with “conservative” mindsets and those who with “liberal” mindsets. Am I to assume with you that the gospel and the church must necessarily be controlled by that paradigm as well? Am I to assume that the message and life we share as Christians are subject to mere ideology? You assume WAY too much and therefore, you give the impression of listening WAY too little. You assume to know where I, and others in NW are coming from and what lens we see the world through, and that’s a BIG problem. Let me tell you something James, there are two kinds of people in this world . . . and I’m not either one of them.
Sorry if that’s a problem for you.
We have exhausted the limits of this format – actually it was exhausted for me last night, but if you would like to speak person to person, look me up and I’ll buy the coffee.
Christopher….I do not think that there are simply just two kinds of people and that there are just two exact sides….my apologies once more for not laying out things so that you could understand them better. I guess I kindof assumed that one would be able to simply know that no one believes that. There are levels of liberalism and levels of conservatism and sorry to tell you…but everyone has them. AND yes…at whatever levels of those they have is going to be their default way of looking at things, especially initially.
You talk about me basically being judgmental (your statement about how I have a monochrome way of looking at people…not true by the way) …and are being very judgmental towards me. I don’t really care…but that’s how you’re being. That is how people work,,,it’s like those people that say “there are no absolutes!”
You talk about me not listening, yet you read into things I have said several times and totally misinterpret things. That completely goes with what I was saying earlier….you have one way of processing through information where what I am saying obviously doesn’t make sense and somehow end up meaning something else to you, and vice versa for me with thing you keep saying.
For example…you completely missed some of the details about my interactions with some people in New Wine etc….I am not simply “assuming” but am taking from several experiences and conversations. Did I say anywhere above that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in New Wine was this way? If not and if you have not had interaction with me previously on discussions than I am probably not talking about you. I specifically mentioned those that I have had contact and conversation with….not by name, as that isn’t appropriate.
haha…for the record though, I do appreciate your joke in there about the two kinds of people and that you’re not either of them. That was funny 🙂
and while I will always be up for replying and continuing conversation on here I am also always up for coffee and getting to know someone new! maybe next week?
James,
When you frame things as “liberal vs. conservative” that is a dichotomous and polarizing world-view, and one that you keep insisting is “ok” and inevitable. You say that I’m reading into what you say, well how about this: you say, “There are levels of liberalism and levels of conservatism and sorry to tell you…but everyone has them.”
And I say to the above quote: Sorry to tell you but, but once again you are ASSUMING WAY TOO MUCH. You assume that the outline for the world and how people think and process can be reduced to shades of either liberal and conservative ideology and you insist “that’s just the way things are.” Thank God, the gospel is specifically geared to address that kind of bondage to division and dichotomy (gospel transcends ideology). The fact that you allow for variations on the theme of “liberalism/conservatism” is no concession at all.
You have repeatedly injected this viewpoint into this dialog, and I simply described it metaphorically when I referred to it as monochrome. Let’s be honest, the “liberal-conservative” debate is by it’s nature a “two-pole” debate. The problem that I have with that “bi-polar” nature of “left-right” is that while it may be useful for something (I don’t know what except partisan politics) it is completely USELESS for forging community, building trust, partnering in the gospel, and advancing the redemptive reality of the kingdom of God.
You have no problem stating your preference for this dichotomous world-view of “conservative-liberal”, but you go too far when you assume that that’s the only game in town and that all of us are captive to it wether we realize it or not. Do you not see how disrespectful that sounds? It comes off as utterly arrogant for you assume that everyone in some way is subject to that system (which conveniently is your system and one that you are familiar with). Why don’t you ask Michael Badriaki (hails from Uganda) what he thinks of your “inevitable” world-view for parsing reality.
Because you have continually injected that poison (yes, I chose that word on purpose) into this dialog insisting that this polarizing-ideological dichotomy is really everyone’s default system: you are either “conservative” leaning or “liberal” leaning is absolute garbage. I gave you my judgment on this before but for the record here it is again:
LOOKING AT THE WORLD THROUGH A “LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE” LENS IS A MONOCHROME WORLD-VIEW (THERE ARE ONLY TWO MAJOR OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM AND BOTH ARE MAN-CENTERED IDEOLOGY). THIS “LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE” WORLD-VIEW IS AT BEST USELESS FOR GOSPEL ENGAGEMENT AND DUE TO IT’S BUILT IN POLARITY IT IS ALWAYS DIVISIVE!
Well, that went downhill.
I think this conversation has lost it’s helpfulness, but I will answer your question… I don’t like being labeled with labels that don’t accurately reflect my positions. The fact is, I disagree with stereotypical “liberals” on as much or more issues than I agree with them on (and the same with “emergent”). I’m only liberal if by liberal you mean “not conservative,” in the sense that you mean “conservative,” because plenty of faithful conservatives would not agree with you on the above issues
And more often than not, those kinds of labels are a way to lump people in a group and not truly listen to the nuances they bring to the table.
Go to Emmaus, you’ll appreciate it. Go get coffee with Chris.
ok…maybe I should have done this to begin with so as to help: Merriam Webster’s definitions for the word liberal include the following:
as an adjective the word can mean: 2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : ample, full4 : not literal or strict : loose 5 : “broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms”
and as a noun can mean: a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.
In using the word, I am thinking of it not so much as a “label” though yes, it does that…but as a descriptive word. In what the conversation even started out as…in talkng about the emergent church and what it looks like, particularly with regard to the racial makeup…and our transition of it even to broadly the topic of what does/should church look like. It is safe to say that what was being supported or encouraged as the way to be, is more of a “broad-minded” and “not bound by traditional forms” of thinking.
a couple of years ago in fact, I attended a seminar by Tony Jones where he talked about “emergents” and how they don’t like labels and how they reject much of the traditional ways (forms) of how to do church. One might even say they have a more “Generous Orthodoxy”. ALL of that fits within the actual definition of “liberal”, does it not?
and yeah….didn’t I even say….there are levels of conservative and liberal? I specifically said that in fact. I also said that wherever it is you stand within the scope of those is simply going to be the lens through which you see and interpret things. We are not all equally the same in how we think. I am more conservative than some and less than others, and how I process through information ends up having that perspective because it is my brains perspective.
That is all I am saying. When I go to Emmaus, which will be on my list…I still will process though it with my particular point of view and perspective. There will probably be things that stick out to me that someone who thinks from a different point of view doesn’t notice as much….and that’s part of what makes us all unique and able to dialogue with people from a multitude of perspectives.
Again, none of that is very accurate about me. And not just because it’s different “levels.” You’re still thinking in terms of a false dichotomy.
how is it not true?
I’m open-minded in the sense of being willing, at my best, to listen and understand differing views, if that is all that is meant. I would just call that “not being a jerk,” and would hope that isn’t just a “liberal” quality. I’m not sure how making as dogmatic claims as I have about consumer churches really counts as being open-minded or a “generous orthodoxy.” I think they are still churches. But I think they and their witnesses are suffering because they aren’t experiencing all that God wants to show them about His kingdom. Otherwise, I am very strict in the observation of orthodox, traditional, and established forms or ways.
My complaint is that the consumer, preference-based church is breaking from the orthodox, traditional, and established. I think you’re “liberal” in this particular argument based on that definition of liberal for breaking with the traditional forms of church as based around location rather than subcultures or preferences.
Any more would take forever to explain. I honestly don’t see how this is so hard to understand. I’m not trying to trick you. I’m just not a liberal. I don’t think this is going to be solved in this conversation, so you can have the last word.
fair enough and that helps me understand you more than and quite frankly I hadn’t even tried to make this liberal/conservative thing the dominant part of the conversation. It kinda morphed that way after someone completely misinterpreted an attempt at humor. The only post that talked about liberal and conservative before that was one of yours.
So my apologies for that….I had actually not wanted it to go that way, but you know me…if someone says something in reply to something I said than I am probably going to respond as well.
A point (away from liberal/conservative) though is that much of the orthodox, traditional and established churches which you just made it sound that you support, are in large part the ways there are based off of preferences. Location is definitely a part of what makes them up, but so is preference and all the traditions they bring in. an overwhelming amount of what churches look like on Sunday is based off of preferences that have become traditions that started in large part based off of preferences. The Emergent Church is simply the newest version of all that. Emergent Churches have already started becoming that which they talk against. They have their strong stances about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. They have designed their services based off of ways in which they feel comfortable worshiping together corporately.
My argument was that as long as they remember that they are a part of the church universal and a part of the church in their communities as a whole. That is why I brought up the example of how the churches in North Marion have been able to draw together and function as one church while at the same time having various distinct services on most Sunday mornings.
As long as any certain emergent church makes a pointed effort to think of themselves as a part of the larger church in any given community and focuses on building positive and relationships with all the other church bodies in that area regardless of ethnic or socioeconomic makeup, than they will be functioning as part of a diverse church.
If all the churches in any given community were to do this, they would be reflective of the values that we all agree on are important as to who is accepted as members of the church. …Everyone!
This is what I don’t see as being so hard to understand
for coffee that is
haha…I’m relaxed, I was just confused. How do I delete my comment as now it makes no sense to even have it up?
I’m house sitting this week actually in Hubbard and won’t be around campus until next week. somewhere after wednesday would be best
James give me a call when you get back and we’ll schedule it – 818/7302588
will do!
Subject relevant question…I totally understand and appreciate the points about not wanting churches to just be done in ways that it becomes just consumeristic.
If this is indeed wrong, than why even plant churches in areas where there are already churches. Couldn’t people instead move to an area and get involved with a church that is already there and if they need to do anything better…such as being more diverse (subject at hand) or any other issue…then just work patiently on helping that church change from the inside out. That way it build up the traditional local church that’s already in a community.
This really is a question too…I’m not asking because I have already decided. I’m thinking about your points above and this seems like it would be a logical direction to go if the focus should be on making sure the local churches are reflecting the values above.
Now we’re talking, James – that’s a great question. Look forward to meeting you in a couple weeks and unpacking this further.